-----------------------------------------
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
-- ABRAHAM LINCOLN
-----------------------------------------
Management gurus advise against the the habit of 'over-promising and under-delivering'.
But, actually following this wise counsel seems extraordinarily difficult, doesn't it?
Just the opposite would be preferable, plus the surprises would tend to be more positive!
Because people routinely promise things they have no intention -or possibility- of achieving, there are always folks who want to believe that their wishful hopes will be realized, even if there does happen to be a measure of empty rhetoric involved.
Imagine any public official or candidate for public office who isn't tempted to promise or promote things he/she knows are desired by the voting public.
That is certainly an integral part of getting elected and reelected, because it does reflect the priorities and the 'will' of the community, at least at that moment.
But, what about those who prefer to influence public opinion who are not publicly elected or appointed?
Aren't most of us in that category one way or the other?
By seeking to influence public opinion, we are all well within our rights and responsibilities; in fact we'd be abrogating our role as citizens if we did not exercise that role.
What troubles me the most is when certain individuals or groups abuse public sensibilities by repeatedly offering outlandish, deceptive or unsustainable ideas or proposals.
More specifically, the proliferation of so-called public 'initiatives' sponsored by people like Tim Eyman have long ago crossed the line of reasonableness.
Yet, the abuse continues, while our State Legislature seems continuously at a loss about how to deal with this process, caught as it is between making potentially useful measures available for periodic public voting and effectively dealing with clever 'issues' that are created mainly for their mischief making value.
An interesting article in Crosscut written by Floyd Mackay sheds light on the the latest Eyman initiative, I-1033, and parallel initiatives over time in Washington, Oregon and California.
I don't have an answer to how public initiatives can be better handled, but several ideas have been discussed that have potential for improvement.
In the meantime, the best course to follow seems pretty simple, if a way to insure it can be found -and that is a big 'if';
be scrupulously truthful and balanced manner in presenting proposals for public approval.
Another way would be to reverse the norm, and practice this blog's title.
-----------------------------------
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. --attributed to ABRAHAM LINCOLN
-----------------------------------
Friday, July 17, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
“The Ship the Nazis Had to Get”
----------------------------------
Some time ago I did a little research on my father's WW II military service.
It turns out he was a '90-day wonder' who volunteered for the Naval Reserve on November 1, 1942 and was eventually assigned to the Merchant Marine vessel SS Seatrain Texas, which was designed to carry tanks and locomotives to North Africa and Europe for the Allies.
Although my father was not yet aboard the Seatrain Texas at the time of its most famous voyage, some may find that story fascinating, so it is linked below.
This link captures the story of the 'Daring Voyage of SS Seatrain Texas, Code Name: Treasure Ship.'
----------------------------------
Seatrain was not a pretty ship, but it was very functional and blessed with good fortune.
And, as it turned out, its delivery of the first US Sherman tanks to fight 'the Desert Fox', Rommel at the 2nd Battle of El Alamein, was the deciding factor in turning 'Operation Torch' into an Allied victory in North Africa that prevented the Axis from capturing Egypt, the Suez Canal and the Mideast oil fields..
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Gloom, Despair & Agony on Me...
-----------------------------
Ever had a day that seemed darker and drearier than usual?
Not necessarily totally black, mind you, but maybe the color of slate or wet granite gray.
And, I'm not talking about the weather either.
I'm talking about those -fortunately few- times that mental and emotional attitudes dip to an undesirable level.
That usually doesn't last long for me, but even short episodes aren't fun.
Here's some of the things that conspired to bother me this time:
• incessant media coverage of the mostly trivial events that qualify as repetitive 'worthy news'
• too much avoidance of not-fun things I need to do.
• boredom due to too few 'fun' things done lately.
• cumulative physical fatigue that really doesn't hurt, but does limit previously normal activity.
• impatience with elected representatives and their tiresome posturing, delaying tactics, and constant electioneering.
• probably a few others that aren't worth the effort to remember.
That's about it.
Fortunately, all of these things are fading quickly into their proper perspective, even as we speak.
That's a mercy!
-----------------------------
One of the value judgements that I habitually favor -whether I actually do it or not - is that work always comes first.
[How's that for a potential, permanent downer?]
In other words, 'no fun until the work is done'.
And, of course the 'work' is never done, so there's just no time for fun!
I can tell you there are people pretty close to me who are very tired of hearing that kind of stuff, even in jest!
-----------------------------
The title is taken from a silly song from the old TV show 'Hee-Haw';
Gloom, despair and agony on me.
Deep, dark depression, excessive misery.
If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all.
Gloom, despair and agony on me.
-----------------------------
Ever had a day that seemed darker and drearier than usual?
Not necessarily totally black, mind you, but maybe the color of slate or wet granite gray.
And, I'm not talking about the weather either.
I'm talking about those -fortunately few- times that mental and emotional attitudes dip to an undesirable level.
That usually doesn't last long for me, but even short episodes aren't fun.
Here's some of the things that conspired to bother me this time:
• incessant media coverage of the mostly trivial events that qualify as repetitive 'worthy news'
• too much avoidance of not-fun things I need to do.
• boredom due to too few 'fun' things done lately.
• cumulative physical fatigue that really doesn't hurt, but does limit previously normal activity.
• impatience with elected representatives and their tiresome posturing, delaying tactics, and constant electioneering.
• probably a few others that aren't worth the effort to remember.
That's about it.
Fortunately, all of these things are fading quickly into their proper perspective, even as we speak.
That's a mercy!
-----------------------------
One of the value judgements that I habitually favor -whether I actually do it or not - is that work always comes first.
[How's that for a potential, permanent downer?]
In other words, 'no fun until the work is done'.
And, of course the 'work' is never done, so there's just no time for fun!
I can tell you there are people pretty close to me who are very tired of hearing that kind of stuff, even in jest!
-----------------------------
The title is taken from a silly song from the old TV show 'Hee-Haw';
Gloom, despair and agony on me.
Deep, dark depression, excessive misery.
If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all.
Gloom, despair and agony on me.
-----------------------------
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Healthcare: Simple or Complicated?
----------------------------
The concept of universal health is amazingly simple.
So, why is it that our national discussion is getting so complicated?
Do you think money -big money- has anything to do with it?
It seems there are powerful interests who really don't want to see the status quo changed at all, unless it benefits them.
But, self-serving resistance to change isn't exactly new, is it?
The real question is 'who is to be served'?
And, health care-wise, the priority needs to be all Americans.
Period. End of story.
It is a national embarrassment and tragedy that the USA hasn't got an effective health care program.
In my mind, only three things are absolutely critical;
• everyone is covered
• a public health plan option is required
• a reasonable method of determining 'levels of service' and financing is needed
None of these are simple, but since when are complications not expected?
And, many folks think some other things are also critically important, too.
Cutting through all the excuses for non-action, delay and watering down, a recent letter to the editor got it right:
It addressed our elected members of Congress, cited the fact that they all had excellent US government health plans, and requested the same for all citizens.
If that's too rich, then let's have a talk.
That seems pretty simple approach too, doesn't it?
Soon, all the proposals, concerns and discussion will begin to get more serious.
That usually happens once Congress agrees to something that may be voted upon.
That is also the time when all the arrayed opposition comes together with a concerted attack designed to instill doubt, plead too expensive, engender fear, and spread deliberate misinformation.
Can't wait for that spectacle, can you?
One can only hope that our elected officials have the courage to do what they have needed to do for so long.
--------------------------------
Here are two links to recent articles on this subject:
A Bill Moyers interview about 'the Select Few'.
A NY Times collection of three pro & con arguments.
--------------------------------
A final thought:
I have been blessed with two things for most of my life; good health and good jobs that provided me and my family with excellent health care coverage.
There are many people who have not been nearly so fortunate.
When I last retired and became reliant on Medicare as my my primary health care provider, it was with a combination of uniformed doubt and trepidation.
The doubt was based upon my own ignorance.
The fear was based upon what I thought was to be the frustration of dealing with a large government bureaucracy with complicated rules, procedures and complicated paperwork.
You know, like the IRS.
I was wrong.
Medicare has proven to be the least complicated health care system I have dealt with!
And, that is despite the fact that my health care needs have been greater during the past year than at any time of my life.
So, I have become a believer in Medicare and in the government's ability to manage such a program with efficiency, simplicity and fairness.
I'm sure there will be other things for me to learn, but so far, the use of my expensive secondary health insurance has been negligible.
So, don't worry you private health insurance providers; I'll still pay your premiums, but won't likely submit nearly as many claims.
That alone ought to help keep the existing private health care system profitable!
And, I know there are many others who feel the same way I used to about Medicare, as well as about the government's ability to sustainably finance such a system for everyone.
I believe those fears are legitimate, but will also prove false -providing our elected representatives decide to stand up to the pressures of the lobbyists for the status quo.
There are few things more important than our health, and no method is more effective than preventative care, which any universal health care program should emphasize and reward.
I am confident that America will 'do the right thing' as Winston Churchill once said - after it has tried every other course of action!
I hope I'm wrong about that last part.
But, the concept is simple and we deserve it, both as a nation and as individuals.
--------------------------------
The concept of universal health is amazingly simple.
So, why is it that our national discussion is getting so complicated?
Do you think money -big money- has anything to do with it?
It seems there are powerful interests who really don't want to see the status quo changed at all, unless it benefits them.
But, self-serving resistance to change isn't exactly new, is it?
The real question is 'who is to be served'?
And, health care-wise, the priority needs to be all Americans.
Period. End of story.
It is a national embarrassment and tragedy that the USA hasn't got an effective health care program.
In my mind, only three things are absolutely critical;
• everyone is covered
• a public health plan option is required
• a reasonable method of determining 'levels of service' and financing is needed
None of these are simple, but since when are complications not expected?
And, many folks think some other things are also critically important, too.
Cutting through all the excuses for non-action, delay and watering down, a recent letter to the editor got it right:
It addressed our elected members of Congress, cited the fact that they all had excellent US government health plans, and requested the same for all citizens.
If that's too rich, then let's have a talk.
That seems pretty simple approach too, doesn't it?
Soon, all the proposals, concerns and discussion will begin to get more serious.
That usually happens once Congress agrees to something that may be voted upon.
That is also the time when all the arrayed opposition comes together with a concerted attack designed to instill doubt, plead too expensive, engender fear, and spread deliberate misinformation.
Can't wait for that spectacle, can you?
One can only hope that our elected officials have the courage to do what they have needed to do for so long.
--------------------------------
Here are two links to recent articles on this subject:
A Bill Moyers interview about 'the Select Few'.
A NY Times collection of three pro & con arguments.
--------------------------------
A final thought:
I have been blessed with two things for most of my life; good health and good jobs that provided me and my family with excellent health care coverage.
There are many people who have not been nearly so fortunate.
When I last retired and became reliant on Medicare as my my primary health care provider, it was with a combination of uniformed doubt and trepidation.
The doubt was based upon my own ignorance.
The fear was based upon what I thought was to be the frustration of dealing with a large government bureaucracy with complicated rules, procedures and complicated paperwork.
You know, like the IRS.
I was wrong.
Medicare has proven to be the least complicated health care system I have dealt with!
And, that is despite the fact that my health care needs have been greater during the past year than at any time of my life.
So, I have become a believer in Medicare and in the government's ability to manage such a program with efficiency, simplicity and fairness.
I'm sure there will be other things for me to learn, but so far, the use of my expensive secondary health insurance has been negligible.
So, don't worry you private health insurance providers; I'll still pay your premiums, but won't likely submit nearly as many claims.
That alone ought to help keep the existing private health care system profitable!
And, I know there are many others who feel the same way I used to about Medicare, as well as about the government's ability to sustainably finance such a system for everyone.
I believe those fears are legitimate, but will also prove false -providing our elected representatives decide to stand up to the pressures of the lobbyists for the status quo.
There are few things more important than our health, and no method is more effective than preventative care, which any universal health care program should emphasize and reward.
I am confident that America will 'do the right thing' as Winston Churchill once said - after it has tried every other course of action!
I hope I'm wrong about that last part.
But, the concept is simple and we deserve it, both as a nation and as individuals.
--------------------------------
Saturday, July 11, 2009
On Neighborhoods
--------------------------------
A recent article in Crosscut seems to pretty accurately capture much of our local discussions on neighborhoods and preserving their viability as places where people want to live.
Because Seattle is often cited as an example of livable neighborhoods, these observations will likely resonate with those wishing to emulate practices which encourage and improve neighborhood quality.
One argument seems to stand out; older neighborhoods, especially those established in the 1950's or before, often are cited as the best examples.
That fits with the idea of 'neighborhood character' which is an often heard phrase that can mean different things to different folks.
Newer and developing neighborhoods don't appear to attract as much positive interest, although I do think it is critically important to continue encouraging those practices which lead towards neighborhood cohesion, desirability and the things that combine to produce the kind of neighborhood character that attracts and holds residents.
Not lost in the opinions expressed is the idea that 'walkability' can just be created by installing sidewalks, trails and bike lanes.
There also need to be local destinations and businesses where people want to go -or need to visit- often.
You know, those 'urban center' type places that get talked about in planning exercises.
Much easier to keep what already exists than to create new ones that people are willing to accept it seems.
Unless, of course, we can encourage enough mixed use development of the sort that make auto travel less necessary.
Anyway, see what you think.
--------------------------------
A recent article in Crosscut seems to pretty accurately capture much of our local discussions on neighborhoods and preserving their viability as places where people want to live.
Because Seattle is often cited as an example of livable neighborhoods, these observations will likely resonate with those wishing to emulate practices which encourage and improve neighborhood quality.
One argument seems to stand out; older neighborhoods, especially those established in the 1950's or before, often are cited as the best examples.
That fits with the idea of 'neighborhood character' which is an often heard phrase that can mean different things to different folks.
Newer and developing neighborhoods don't appear to attract as much positive interest, although I do think it is critically important to continue encouraging those practices which lead towards neighborhood cohesion, desirability and the things that combine to produce the kind of neighborhood character that attracts and holds residents.
Not lost in the opinions expressed is the idea that 'walkability' can just be created by installing sidewalks, trails and bike lanes.
There also need to be local destinations and businesses where people want to go -or need to visit- often.
You know, those 'urban center' type places that get talked about in planning exercises.
Much easier to keep what already exists than to create new ones that people are willing to accept it seems.
Unless, of course, we can encourage enough mixed use development of the sort that make auto travel less necessary.
Anyway, see what you think.
--------------------------------
Friday, July 10, 2009
Climate: Global Warming, Local Anomaly or Normal?
-------------------------------
Now in my fourth year as owner of a photovoltaic array, I've noticed this year is the brightest to date.
And, not by just a little bit.
As of June 30, 2009 had generated 56% of my annual estimate, versus the second highest year [2006] mid-year total of 51.3%.
Since a bright, sunny day equates to about 0.5% of my annual estimate, that means 2009 is now over 9 bright sunny days ahead of 2006.
Both 2007 and 2008 were less bright, and equated to about 9 sunny days behind 2006, and 18 sunny days behind this year.
A comparison of year-end totals might be more telling, but it's too early to know what 2009 will produce.
But, looking at 2006 versus 2007 and 2008 is also instructive.
The year 2006 was about 14% ahead of both years.
What does all this mean?
Probably not much, except that it may be just as likely for 2009 to represent evidence of global warming, as for the years 2007 and 2008 to represent global cooling.
Better yet, normal variations between years are just that - normal.
But, that's just an educated guess, knowing how fickle the weather patterns can be around these parts.
-----------------------------------
I am glad that more PV solar arrays are being put into service every year.
Not long ago, I received an e-mail from friends in our old San Francisco neighborhood which advised that an organization known as OBOG [One Block Off the Grid] was soliciting interest in having PV arrays installed in the Bay area.
It seems if an aggregate of 100 mega-watts can be committed to, then special pricing and permitting can be obtained, thus saving substantial investment costs.
That is a creative solution which I hope succeeds.
More locally, this announcement appeared of a plan to construct a major PV power generation facility near Cle Elum in Kittitas County.
Now, that would be a breakthrough of major proportions!
------------------------------------
Now in my fourth year as owner of a photovoltaic array, I've noticed this year is the brightest to date.
And, not by just a little bit.
As of June 30, 2009 had generated 56% of my annual estimate, versus the second highest year [2006] mid-year total of 51.3%.
Since a bright, sunny day equates to about 0.5% of my annual estimate, that means 2009 is now over 9 bright sunny days ahead of 2006.
Both 2007 and 2008 were less bright, and equated to about 9 sunny days behind 2006, and 18 sunny days behind this year.
A comparison of year-end totals might be more telling, but it's too early to know what 2009 will produce.
But, looking at 2006 versus 2007 and 2008 is also instructive.
The year 2006 was about 14% ahead of both years.
What does all this mean?
Probably not much, except that it may be just as likely for 2009 to represent evidence of global warming, as for the years 2007 and 2008 to represent global cooling.
Better yet, normal variations between years are just that - normal.
But, that's just an educated guess, knowing how fickle the weather patterns can be around these parts.
-----------------------------------
I am glad that more PV solar arrays are being put into service every year.
Not long ago, I received an e-mail from friends in our old San Francisco neighborhood which advised that an organization known as OBOG [One Block Off the Grid] was soliciting interest in having PV arrays installed in the Bay area.
It seems if an aggregate of 100 mega-watts can be committed to, then special pricing and permitting can be obtained, thus saving substantial investment costs.
That is a creative solution which I hope succeeds.
More locally, this announcement appeared of a plan to construct a major PV power generation facility near Cle Elum in Kittitas County.
Now, that would be a breakthrough of major proportions!
------------------------------------
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Budget Reporting: Whatcom County's Home Charter Mystique
----------------------------------
'Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.' - Louis D. Brandeis
---------------------------------
An earlier blog addressed this subject's issue.
Now, still lacking some basic answers, I hope questioning County Council candidates may help reveal what the County's budget reporting requirements are, what they ought to be according to the County Charter, and what the County Council intends to do about correcting any deficiencies.
Will it require a Charter amendment, or a simple Resolution to the Executive that requests more frequent budgetary progress reports?
As a City Council Member, I wanted to stay timely informed about City financial matters -good, bad or indifferent.
And, it's hard to imagine County Council members not feeling the same way!
Maybe there are ready answers to my question just waiting to be harvested.
But, maybe there aren't, which may make asking the question somewhat unwelcome?
This question needs to be asked, answered and fixed as appropriate.
------------------------------------
On related matters, other questions ought to be asked of the candidates themselves, and not only about specific issues.
An earlier blog covered this aspect as well, plus the important general qualifications of competence and integrity.
Unlike 'issues of the moment', the basic decision-making process of candidates -plus the ever essential integrity and competence- are the criteria that voters can rely upon regardless of issue.
Hopefully, the forums, debates, campaign literature and answers to questions like these will help voters make the selections most likely to benefit Whatcom County and other jurisdictions.
------------------------------------
One final thought.
David Brooks, the Conservative pundit, wrote this opinion column for the NYTimes.
It seems a very timely and appropriate subject, regardless of jurisdiction.
Read it and develop your own reaction.
Frankly, I enjoyed it.
------------------------------------
"Writers are at their best as terrorists- Sometimes social terrorists, sometimes political, sometimes terrorists of the heart. If a writer is good, he will be all three at once. His weapons are words well used to disturb and to clarify thought, emotion and action." - John Ralston Saul
------------------------------------
'Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.' - Louis D. Brandeis
---------------------------------
An earlier blog addressed this subject's issue.
Now, still lacking some basic answers, I hope questioning County Council candidates may help reveal what the County's budget reporting requirements are, what they ought to be according to the County Charter, and what the County Council intends to do about correcting any deficiencies.
Will it require a Charter amendment, or a simple Resolution to the Executive that requests more frequent budgetary progress reports?
As a City Council Member, I wanted to stay timely informed about City financial matters -good, bad or indifferent.
And, it's hard to imagine County Council members not feeling the same way!
Maybe there are ready answers to my question just waiting to be harvested.
But, maybe there aren't, which may make asking the question somewhat unwelcome?
This question needs to be asked, answered and fixed as appropriate.
------------------------------------
On related matters, other questions ought to be asked of the candidates themselves, and not only about specific issues.
An earlier blog covered this aspect as well, plus the important general qualifications of competence and integrity.
Unlike 'issues of the moment', the basic decision-making process of candidates -plus the ever essential integrity and competence- are the criteria that voters can rely upon regardless of issue.
Hopefully, the forums, debates, campaign literature and answers to questions like these will help voters make the selections most likely to benefit Whatcom County and other jurisdictions.
------------------------------------
One final thought.
David Brooks, the Conservative pundit, wrote this opinion column for the NYTimes.
It seems a very timely and appropriate subject, regardless of jurisdiction.
Read it and develop your own reaction.
Frankly, I enjoyed it.
------------------------------------
"Writers are at their best as terrorists- Sometimes social terrorists, sometimes political, sometimes terrorists of the heart. If a writer is good, he will be all three at once. His weapons are words well used to disturb and to clarify thought, emotion and action." - John Ralston Saul
------------------------------------
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Politics: Paleontology & Palintology
--------------------------------------
Politics is a profession; a serious, complicated and, in its true sense, a noble one. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
--------------------------------------
Pop, Fizzle, SSSSss.
Those sounds might remind one of inferior fireworks being launched on an exceedingly damp 4th of July.
Fitting isn't it, that Sarah! -the elected one- elected to announce her non-election close to independence day, isn't it?
Can't take the heat any more, and doesn't want to attract more unfavorable attention.
Who can blame her?
It's just no fun.
So, she quit her day job over 1.5 years early.
Leaving those who elected her governor wondering why they had done so.
But, maybe not, because Alaska prides itself on being such a different place.
One difference is the relative size of its government.
Ever heard this one; 'never have so few been governed by so many'?
For a resource-rich state with a population of less than 700,000, an inordinate reliance on federal subsidies, plus an annual state rebate of over $3200 to every citizen on oil & gas production, that big government label sticks like a spoonful of peanut butter to the roof of the mouth.
(Did you know that the U.S. Senate approved the purchase of Alaska from the Russian Empire on March 30, 1867, for $7.2 million at two cents per acre?)
Alas, there won't be any Sarah! to kick around any more.
What a shame!
Or is it?
Maybe not.
But, only because the political games she agreed to play were taken so seriously -both ways.
The science of Paleontology studies extinct beasts from fossil evidence collected from thousands of years ago.
if Palintology were to become a formal study subject, its extinct beasts -mostly thin-skinned political animals- might have lived for thousands of minutes, maybe even hours, or days.
And, its possible a few may have been around for several months or years, despite a propensity to bug out early when the going gets tougher, or less fun.
It probably doesn't help a political animal's longevity to rely so completely on 'gut feelings' and instincts that no effort is made to actually learn something from history.
For any species to be so unbalanced does not bode well for its survival.
But, we need to wish Sarah! well, whatever path she now chooses.
Rest assured she will continue in the public eye, even if not in an official public capacity.
Her attraction to the spotlight won't allow otherwise.
But, this time it will be more on her own terms -at least that's what she must hope.
Between the likely -paid- speaking engagements, the inevitable book contracts, the appearances on selected media channels, and generally her ability to attract attention , she'll still be able to make a pretty fair living I suppose.
But, somehow things are not likely to ever be the same for this Sarah! person.
Quitting a high profile elected job is frowned upon by those who have worked up such a passion for her that they will inevitably feel let down or betrayed.
Survival of the fittest is probably the operative phrase, and everyone knows its easier to be a critic or booster than it is to actually serve in office and be seen as a leader.
So, the critics always survive longer because they take less risks, and rely on poor memories to connect them to past stupidities.
God help those Sarah! type people who are attracted to fame like moths to a flame!
But, hey, crashing and burning is an American tradition, isn't it?
And, what better time than the 4th of July to do that?
--------------------------------------
My blog of August 30, 2008 predicted that Sarah! would be mainly a distraction.
Little did I know how true that eventually would become!
I'm proud to say that two very talented women, both graduates of my alma mater, were instrumental in helping us understand who Sarah! was - and who she wasn't.
Thank you, Katie Couric and Tina Fey!
--------------------------------------
Politics is not a game. It is an earnest business. - Winston Churchill
--------------------------------------
Politics is a profession; a serious, complicated and, in its true sense, a noble one. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
--------------------------------------
Pop, Fizzle, SSSSss.
Those sounds might remind one of inferior fireworks being launched on an exceedingly damp 4th of July.
Fitting isn't it, that Sarah! -the elected one- elected to announce her non-election close to independence day, isn't it?
Can't take the heat any more, and doesn't want to attract more unfavorable attention.
Who can blame her?
It's just no fun.
So, she quit her day job over 1.5 years early.
Leaving those who elected her governor wondering why they had done so.
But, maybe not, because Alaska prides itself on being such a different place.
One difference is the relative size of its government.
Ever heard this one; 'never have so few been governed by so many'?
For a resource-rich state with a population of less than 700,000, an inordinate reliance on federal subsidies, plus an annual state rebate of over $3200 to every citizen on oil & gas production, that big government label sticks like a spoonful of peanut butter to the roof of the mouth.
(Did you know that the U.S. Senate approved the purchase of Alaska from the Russian Empire on March 30, 1867, for $7.2 million at two cents per acre?)
Alas, there won't be any Sarah! to kick around any more.
What a shame!
Or is it?
Maybe not.
But, only because the political games she agreed to play were taken so seriously -both ways.
The science of Paleontology studies extinct beasts from fossil evidence collected from thousands of years ago.
if Palintology were to become a formal study subject, its extinct beasts -mostly thin-skinned political animals- might have lived for thousands of minutes, maybe even hours, or days.
And, its possible a few may have been around for several months or years, despite a propensity to bug out early when the going gets tougher, or less fun.
It probably doesn't help a political animal's longevity to rely so completely on 'gut feelings' and instincts that no effort is made to actually learn something from history.
For any species to be so unbalanced does not bode well for its survival.
But, we need to wish Sarah! well, whatever path she now chooses.
Rest assured she will continue in the public eye, even if not in an official public capacity.
Her attraction to the spotlight won't allow otherwise.
But, this time it will be more on her own terms -at least that's what she must hope.
Between the likely -paid- speaking engagements, the inevitable book contracts, the appearances on selected media channels, and generally her ability to attract attention , she'll still be able to make a pretty fair living I suppose.
But, somehow things are not likely to ever be the same for this Sarah! person.
Quitting a high profile elected job is frowned upon by those who have worked up such a passion for her that they will inevitably feel let down or betrayed.
Survival of the fittest is probably the operative phrase, and everyone knows its easier to be a critic or booster than it is to actually serve in office and be seen as a leader.
So, the critics always survive longer because they take less risks, and rely on poor memories to connect them to past stupidities.
God help those Sarah! type people who are attracted to fame like moths to a flame!
But, hey, crashing and burning is an American tradition, isn't it?
And, what better time than the 4th of July to do that?
--------------------------------------
My blog of August 30, 2008 predicted that Sarah! would be mainly a distraction.
Little did I know how true that eventually would become!
I'm proud to say that two very talented women, both graduates of my alma mater, were instrumental in helping us understand who Sarah! was - and who she wasn't.
Thank you, Katie Couric and Tina Fey!
--------------------------------------
Politics is not a game. It is an earnest business. - Winston Churchill
--------------------------------------
Monday, July 6, 2009
Triple Bottom Line: What Does TBL Mean?
---------------------------
"An invasion of armies can be resisted...But not an idea whose time has come..." - Victor Hugo
---------------------------
In Real Estate, the concept of a 'Triple net lease' is fairly common:
'A triple net lease (Net-Net-Net or NNN) is a lease agreement on a property where the tenant or lessee agrees to pay all real estate taxes, building insurance, and maintenance (the three 'Nets') on the property in addition to any normal fees that are expected under the agreement (rent, etc.).
In such a lease, the tenant or lessee is responsible for all costs associated with repairs or replacement of the structural building elements of the property.'
Why not extend this concept more widely?
For example, to our Waterfront?
----------------------------
Likewise, in economics, an externality or spillover of an economic transaction is an impact on a party that is not directly involved in the transaction.
In such a case, prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits in production or consumption of a product or service.
Why not also use this concept in trying to help estimate a full cost accounting approach to Waterfront Redevelopment?
Think that might mean a different mind-set for the Port of Bellingham?
----------------------------
This is where the TBL concept can be helpful, not just a idle talk and shallow promises, but as a purposeful strategy.
Here, I've paraphrased several points from Wikipedia:
The so-called triple bottom line ("TBL" or "3BL") refers to "people, planet, profit" and captures an expanded set of criteria for measuring success; not just counting economics, but also impacts on ecological and social values.
With the ratification of the United Nations and ICLEI* TBL standard for urban and community accounting in early 2007, this became the dominant approach to public sector full cost accounting.
In the private sector, a commitment to corporate social responsibility and ecological issues implies a commitment to some form of TBL reporting.
[• ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the 'International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives']
The concept of TBL demands that a company's responsibility be to stakeholders rather than shareholders, where "stakeholders" refers to anyone who is influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the actions of the firm.
According to the stakeholder theory, the business entity should be used as a vehicle for coordinating stakeholder interests, instead of just maximizing shareholder (owner) profit.
"People, planet and profit" succinctly describes the triple bottom lines and the goal of sustainability.
"People" (human capital) pertains to fair and beneficial business practices toward labour and the community and region in which a corporation conducts its business.
A triple bottom line enterprise seeks to benefit many constituencies, not exploit or endanger any group of them, but trying to actually quantify this different bottom line is relatively new, problematic and often subjective.
"Planet" (natural capital) refers to sustainable environmental practices.
A TBL endeavor reduces its ecological footprint by, among other things, carefully managing its consumption of energy and non-renewables and reducing manufacturing waste as well as rendering waste less toxic before disposing of it in a safe and legal manner. Literally, this implies a responsible "cradle to grave" approach.
"Profit" is the bottom line shared by all commerce within a sustainability framework, and the economic benefit enjoyed by the host society.
Not to be confused with the limited internal profit made by a company or organization, it is the lasting economic impact the organization has on its economic environment.
A true TBL approach can't be interpreted as traditional corporate accounting tempered with social and environmental impact reports
--------------.
The following business-based arguments support the concept of TBL:
• Reaching untapped market potential: TBL companies can find financially profitable niches which were missed when money alone was the driving factor. Examples include:
• Adding ecotourism or geotourism to an already rich tourism market such as the Dominican Republic
• Developing profitable methods to assist existing NGOs with their missions such as fundraising, reaching clients, or creating networking opportunities with multiple NGOs
• Providing products or services which benefit underserved populations and/or the environment which are also financially profitable.
• Adapting to new business sectors: Since many business opportunities are developing in the realm of social entrepreneurialism, businesses hoping to reach this expanding market must design themselves to be financially profitable, socially beneficial and ecologically sustainable or fail to compete with those companies who do design themselves as such.
• Fiscal policy of governments usually claims to be concerned with identifying social and natural deficits on a less formal basis. However, in a democracy at least, such choices may be guided more by ideology than by economics.
With the emergence of an externally consistent green economics and agreement on definitions of potentially contentious terms such as full-cost accounting, natural capital and social capital, the prospect of formal metrics for ecological and social loss or risk has grown less remote through the 1990s.
While many people agree with the importance of good social conditions and preservation of the environment, there are also many who disagree with the triple bottom line as the way to enhance these conditions.
Imagine that!
Some main arguments against TBL are:
• Division of labour is characteristic of rich societies and a major contributor to their wealth, leading to the view that organisations contribute most to the welfare of society in all respects when they focus on what they do best. .
• Effectiveness: It is observed that concern for social and environmental matters is rare in poor societies (a hungry person would rather eat the whale than photograph it).
Thus by unencumbered attention to business alone, Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' will ensure that business contributes most effectively to the improvement of all areas of society, social and environmental as well as economic.
• Nationalism: Some countries adopt a nationalistic approach with the view that they must look after their own citizens first. This view is not confined to one sector of society, having support from elements of business, labour unions, and politicians.
• Libertarian: As it is possible for a socially responsible person to sincerely believe that the triple bottom line is harmful to society, the libertarian view is that it would be arrogant to force them to support a mechanism for the improvement of society that may, or may not, be the best available.
• Inertia: The difficulty of achieving global agreement on simultaneous policy may render such measures at best advisory - and thus not enforceable.
• Application: According to Fred Robin's The Challenge of TBL: A Responsibility to Whom? one of the major weaknesses of the TBL framework is its ability to be applied in a monetary-based economic system. Because there is no single way in monetary terms to measure the benefits to the society and environment as there is with profit, it does not allow for businesses to sum across all three bottom lines.
Legislation permitting corporations to adopt a triple bottom line is reportedly under consideration in some jurisdictions, including Minnesota and Oregon.
Some businesses have voluntarily adopted a triple bottom line as part of their articles of incorporation or bylaws, and some have advocated for state laws creating a "Sustainable Corporation" that would grant triple bottom line businesses benefits such as tax breaks.
-------------------------
A few years ago, a group of about 75 community leaders assembled for the purpose of hearing about the new proposed LEED Standards for Neighborhoods from its author, a Seattle architect.
The presentation was very well received, building as it did on the more limited LEED standards for single buildings, and extending the sustainability concept to entire areas.
After the presentation, each table of attendees was given the assignment of rating Bellingham's Waterfront Redevelopment Project's potential for achieving the proposed new LEED* standard.
[The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), provides a suite of standards for environmentally sustainable construction.]
The results were nothing short of astonishing!
Every table saw that the Waterfront Redevelopment had the clear potential for meeting the highest LEED Standard - Platinum!
I don't know what happened to that finding, because it is hard to find it among the things the Port has said and done since then.
Briefly, the idea did reappear when the developer of Victoria, BC's 'Dockside Green' Project came to Bellingham to explain how that undertaking had been conceived.
Fortunately, it's first phases have now achieved the highest LEED standards yet seen anywhere - 63 out of a possible 70 points!
Again, nothing but dead silence from our Port about even trying to put similar goals into practice.
Except, I do recall some claims about the Waterfront becoming a model 'green' redevelopment that would attract national and international attention, become a learning center and generate new businesses.
Such hopeful talk now seems only a fading echo, with the stance our Port has taken with advancing its 'partnership' with the City.
Hey, I know doing a big TBL project ain't easy, especially one that will require major clean-up costs, and still be over 10 times the acreage and 2 to 4 times the developed square footage of Dockside Green [a mere 15 acres].
And, I know the current economic hard times don't help either.
But, externalizing excessive costs to the City, seeking exemptions from developers for impact fees, and trying to cut corners in applying the Waterfront Futures Group Recommendations are NOT the solution!
The Port needs to change its thinking on how to go about achieving its Waterfront Redevelopment using true TBL concepts.
Thank goodness we have an opportunity to elect 2 of 3 new Port Commissioners this year!
Hopefully, a new Commission majority can then search for and find a new Executive Director with the experience and vision to get the Waterfront job done in a true TBL fashion.
I'm voting for John Blethen and Mike McAuley to replace Scott Walker and Doug Smith as Port Commissioners.
I hope you will do likewise.
----------------------------
" While an upgrade that cuts energy use in half can save one dollar per square foot in annual energy costs, it can generate more than ten dollars per square foot in new profits every year if it boosts productivity even five per cent!" - Joseph Romm
" One reason we are in so much trouble is that our modern culture is paradoxically behind the times, still assessing the world the way it did in the nineteenth or even eighteenth centuries: as a place of inexhaustible resources, where man is at the pinnacle of creation, separate from and more important than anything around him." - David Suzuki
---------------------------
• The LEED rating system currently has 6 categories:
1 - Energy & the Atmosphere - 17 points maximum
2- Water Efficiency - 5 points maximum
3- Materials & Resources - 13 points maximum
4- Indoor Air Quality [most complex] - 15 points maximum
5- Sustainable Sites [adjacencies] - 14 points maximum
6. Innovation [ideas outside the box] - 5 points maximum
-----------------------------
"An invasion of armies can be resisted...But not an idea whose time has come..." - Victor Hugo
---------------------------
In Real Estate, the concept of a 'Triple net lease' is fairly common:
'A triple net lease (Net-Net-Net or NNN) is a lease agreement on a property where the tenant or lessee agrees to pay all real estate taxes, building insurance, and maintenance (the three 'Nets') on the property in addition to any normal fees that are expected under the agreement (rent, etc.).
In such a lease, the tenant or lessee is responsible for all costs associated with repairs or replacement of the structural building elements of the property.'
Why not extend this concept more widely?
For example, to our Waterfront?
----------------------------
Likewise, in economics, an externality or spillover of an economic transaction is an impact on a party that is not directly involved in the transaction.
In such a case, prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits in production or consumption of a product or service.
Why not also use this concept in trying to help estimate a full cost accounting approach to Waterfront Redevelopment?
Think that might mean a different mind-set for the Port of Bellingham?
----------------------------
This is where the TBL concept can be helpful, not just a idle talk and shallow promises, but as a purposeful strategy.
Here, I've paraphrased several points from Wikipedia:
The so-called triple bottom line ("TBL" or "3BL") refers to "people, planet, profit" and captures an expanded set of criteria for measuring success; not just counting economics, but also impacts on ecological and social values.
With the ratification of the United Nations and ICLEI* TBL standard for urban and community accounting in early 2007, this became the dominant approach to public sector full cost accounting.
In the private sector, a commitment to corporate social responsibility and ecological issues implies a commitment to some form of TBL reporting.
[• ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the 'International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives']
The concept of TBL demands that a company's responsibility be to stakeholders rather than shareholders, where "stakeholders" refers to anyone who is influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the actions of the firm.
According to the stakeholder theory, the business entity should be used as a vehicle for coordinating stakeholder interests, instead of just maximizing shareholder (owner) profit.
"People, planet and profit" succinctly describes the triple bottom lines and the goal of sustainability.
"People" (human capital) pertains to fair and beneficial business practices toward labour and the community and region in which a corporation conducts its business.
A triple bottom line enterprise seeks to benefit many constituencies, not exploit or endanger any group of them, but trying to actually quantify this different bottom line is relatively new, problematic and often subjective.
"Planet" (natural capital) refers to sustainable environmental practices.
A TBL endeavor reduces its ecological footprint by, among other things, carefully managing its consumption of energy and non-renewables and reducing manufacturing waste as well as rendering waste less toxic before disposing of it in a safe and legal manner. Literally, this implies a responsible "cradle to grave" approach.
"Profit" is the bottom line shared by all commerce within a sustainability framework, and the economic benefit enjoyed by the host society.
Not to be confused with the limited internal profit made by a company or organization, it is the lasting economic impact the organization has on its economic environment.
A true TBL approach can't be interpreted as traditional corporate accounting tempered with social and environmental impact reports
--------------.
The following business-based arguments support the concept of TBL:
• Reaching untapped market potential: TBL companies can find financially profitable niches which were missed when money alone was the driving factor. Examples include:
• Adding ecotourism or geotourism to an already rich tourism market such as the Dominican Republic
• Developing profitable methods to assist existing NGOs with their missions such as fundraising, reaching clients, or creating networking opportunities with multiple NGOs
• Providing products or services which benefit underserved populations and/or the environment which are also financially profitable.
• Adapting to new business sectors: Since many business opportunities are developing in the realm of social entrepreneurialism, businesses hoping to reach this expanding market must design themselves to be financially profitable, socially beneficial and ecologically sustainable or fail to compete with those companies who do design themselves as such.
• Fiscal policy of governments usually claims to be concerned with identifying social and natural deficits on a less formal basis. However, in a democracy at least, such choices may be guided more by ideology than by economics.
With the emergence of an externally consistent green economics and agreement on definitions of potentially contentious terms such as full-cost accounting, natural capital and social capital, the prospect of formal metrics for ecological and social loss or risk has grown less remote through the 1990s.
While many people agree with the importance of good social conditions and preservation of the environment, there are also many who disagree with the triple bottom line as the way to enhance these conditions.
Imagine that!
Some main arguments against TBL are:
• Division of labour is characteristic of rich societies and a major contributor to their wealth, leading to the view that organisations contribute most to the welfare of society in all respects when they focus on what they do best. .
• Effectiveness: It is observed that concern for social and environmental matters is rare in poor societies (a hungry person would rather eat the whale than photograph it).
Thus by unencumbered attention to business alone, Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' will ensure that business contributes most effectively to the improvement of all areas of society, social and environmental as well as economic.
• Nationalism: Some countries adopt a nationalistic approach with the view that they must look after their own citizens first. This view is not confined to one sector of society, having support from elements of business, labour unions, and politicians.
• Libertarian: As it is possible for a socially responsible person to sincerely believe that the triple bottom line is harmful to society, the libertarian view is that it would be arrogant to force them to support a mechanism for the improvement of society that may, or may not, be the best available.
• Inertia: The difficulty of achieving global agreement on simultaneous policy may render such measures at best advisory - and thus not enforceable.
• Application: According to Fred Robin's The Challenge of TBL: A Responsibility to Whom? one of the major weaknesses of the TBL framework is its ability to be applied in a monetary-based economic system. Because there is no single way in monetary terms to measure the benefits to the society and environment as there is with profit, it does not allow for businesses to sum across all three bottom lines.
Legislation permitting corporations to adopt a triple bottom line is reportedly under consideration in some jurisdictions, including Minnesota and Oregon.
Some businesses have voluntarily adopted a triple bottom line as part of their articles of incorporation or bylaws, and some have advocated for state laws creating a "Sustainable Corporation" that would grant triple bottom line businesses benefits such as tax breaks.
-------------------------
A few years ago, a group of about 75 community leaders assembled for the purpose of hearing about the new proposed LEED Standards for Neighborhoods from its author, a Seattle architect.
The presentation was very well received, building as it did on the more limited LEED standards for single buildings, and extending the sustainability concept to entire areas.
After the presentation, each table of attendees was given the assignment of rating Bellingham's Waterfront Redevelopment Project's potential for achieving the proposed new LEED* standard.
[The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), provides a suite of standards for environmentally sustainable construction.]
The results were nothing short of astonishing!
Every table saw that the Waterfront Redevelopment had the clear potential for meeting the highest LEED Standard - Platinum!
I don't know what happened to that finding, because it is hard to find it among the things the Port has said and done since then.
Briefly, the idea did reappear when the developer of Victoria, BC's 'Dockside Green' Project came to Bellingham to explain how that undertaking had been conceived.
Fortunately, it's first phases have now achieved the highest LEED standards yet seen anywhere - 63 out of a possible 70 points!
Again, nothing but dead silence from our Port about even trying to put similar goals into practice.
Except, I do recall some claims about the Waterfront becoming a model 'green' redevelopment that would attract national and international attention, become a learning center and generate new businesses.
Such hopeful talk now seems only a fading echo, with the stance our Port has taken with advancing its 'partnership' with the City.
Hey, I know doing a big TBL project ain't easy, especially one that will require major clean-up costs, and still be over 10 times the acreage and 2 to 4 times the developed square footage of Dockside Green [a mere 15 acres].
And, I know the current economic hard times don't help either.
But, externalizing excessive costs to the City, seeking exemptions from developers for impact fees, and trying to cut corners in applying the Waterfront Futures Group Recommendations are NOT the solution!
The Port needs to change its thinking on how to go about achieving its Waterfront Redevelopment using true TBL concepts.
Thank goodness we have an opportunity to elect 2 of 3 new Port Commissioners this year!
Hopefully, a new Commission majority can then search for and find a new Executive Director with the experience and vision to get the Waterfront job done in a true TBL fashion.
I'm voting for John Blethen and Mike McAuley to replace Scott Walker and Doug Smith as Port Commissioners.
I hope you will do likewise.
----------------------------
" While an upgrade that cuts energy use in half can save one dollar per square foot in annual energy costs, it can generate more than ten dollars per square foot in new profits every year if it boosts productivity even five per cent!" - Joseph Romm
" One reason we are in so much trouble is that our modern culture is paradoxically behind the times, still assessing the world the way it did in the nineteenth or even eighteenth centuries: as a place of inexhaustible resources, where man is at the pinnacle of creation, separate from and more important than anything around him." - David Suzuki
---------------------------
• The LEED rating system currently has 6 categories:
1 - Energy & the Atmosphere - 17 points maximum
2- Water Efficiency - 5 points maximum
3- Materials & Resources - 13 points maximum
4- Indoor Air Quality [most complex] - 15 points maximum
5- Sustainable Sites [adjacencies] - 14 points maximum
6. Innovation [ideas outside the box] - 5 points maximum
-----------------------------
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Healthcare & Walmart
-----------------------------
This topic ought to be a hot one, irrespective of anyone's view.
Would you believe Walmart's new stance on this issue?
Think they might see some major advantages that favor them which had not been apparent up to now?
I'd bet on that, because that's what free enterprise is all about.
But, the real question is, can companies like Walmart help make the changes that most of us seem to believe are necessary?
You can think of Walmart what you will, but they can -and do- have a major effect on buying habits when they go after something!
--------------------
First, here's what outgoing Walmart CEO Lee Scott had to say about its plan to establish up to 400 health clinics during the next 2-3 years. [Click here]
And, second, here's someone's opinion on 20 ways these new Walmart clinics might impact the existing healthcare system: [Click here]
Next, here's a short summary of Walmart's reversal on supporting a national healthcare system: [Click here]
And, finally, here's a link to yet another opinion that we ought to let Walmart actually run our healthcare system -on the theory they would do a better job than either the government or the existing providers: [Click here]
-----------------------
Just when we think that we've figured out where folks stand on an issue, things do seem to change, don't they?
This will be an interesting subject to follow the next several months, and beyond.
Let's see what actually occurs, as something certainly will.
Whatever happens, we will not be likely to have the same healthcare system -or lack of it- that we have now.
Neither will we get the system that many strongly favor.
Likely, we'll get some collection of compromises that can gather sufficient support to pass Congress.
I hope the compromise ultimately adopted includes universal basic coverage for everyone, and a public system that people can choose if they want it.
There may be some other features that are desirable too, but those two are essential.
Also, there needs to be a system of periodic review, where changes can be made as the need arises.
It is well past the time that a country, like ours, ought to have a decent healthcare system.
Access to reasonable healthcare is something most people think of as a basic right.
Maybe we should consider adding that to the Bill of Rights?
---------------------------
This topic ought to be a hot one, irrespective of anyone's view.
Would you believe Walmart's new stance on this issue?
Think they might see some major advantages that favor them which had not been apparent up to now?
I'd bet on that, because that's what free enterprise is all about.
But, the real question is, can companies like Walmart help make the changes that most of us seem to believe are necessary?
You can think of Walmart what you will, but they can -and do- have a major effect on buying habits when they go after something!
--------------------
First, here's what outgoing Walmart CEO Lee Scott had to say about its plan to establish up to 400 health clinics during the next 2-3 years. [Click here]
And, second, here's someone's opinion on 20 ways these new Walmart clinics might impact the existing healthcare system: [Click here]
Next, here's a short summary of Walmart's reversal on supporting a national healthcare system: [Click here]
And, finally, here's a link to yet another opinion that we ought to let Walmart actually run our healthcare system -on the theory they would do a better job than either the government or the existing providers: [Click here]
-----------------------
Just when we think that we've figured out where folks stand on an issue, things do seem to change, don't they?
This will be an interesting subject to follow the next several months, and beyond.
Let's see what actually occurs, as something certainly will.
Whatever happens, we will not be likely to have the same healthcare system -or lack of it- that we have now.
Neither will we get the system that many strongly favor.
Likely, we'll get some collection of compromises that can gather sufficient support to pass Congress.
I hope the compromise ultimately adopted includes universal basic coverage for everyone, and a public system that people can choose if they want it.
There may be some other features that are desirable too, but those two are essential.
Also, there needs to be a system of periodic review, where changes can be made as the need arises.
It is well past the time that a country, like ours, ought to have a decent healthcare system.
Access to reasonable healthcare is something most people think of as a basic right.
Maybe we should consider adding that to the Bill of Rights?
---------------------------
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Toolkit Complaint
-----------------------
This time, I'm really mad!
Not just average mad, but livid, outraged and angry.
The whole idea of the City Council giving lip service to the idea of adopting a TOOLKIT is ludicrous.
Why are they wasting time on something like this?
It's unnecessary, unworkable and maybe even un-American!
And to debate this worthless concept in public just demeans people who can't be at the meeting, or don't want to go.
Putting it on public TV is the icing on the cake, and that really frosts me, too.
First, why is any toolkit necessary?
In the old days, folks used to find a cave, or live in a place where the climate was good and food plentiful.
I resent having to pay for something that isn't needed, won't work and is too complicated.
That seems so artificial and wasteful.
Besides, to be affordable, most toolkits are probably made in another country, using inferior materials and workmanship, and having unintelligible instructions!
I resent that, plus having to understand every tool and how it is used.
Take a hammer for example. Why not use a rock?
Rocks are cheap, abundant and usually hard enough -even if they aren't exactly the right shape and size.
Besides, having access to a hammer tends to make folks think that every thing starts to look like a nail!
Why have people running around with tools designed to hit things?
Then, there's screwdrivers; whoever invented them?
And why did someone even carve the first screw? Didn't they have to use another tool to do that?
There are so many kinds and sizes of screwdrivers, too. Excessive!
Plus some idiot decided that screws need to turn to the right to work, most of the time.
Why right and not left? Some right-wing wing-nut probably thought that up to lord it over the rest of us.
Pliers are too dangerous for public use.
Why one could really pinch oneself, if they aren't careful.
And who wants to go around being careful all the time?
Its just another form of government meddling, and loss of individual rights!
There's a few other tools I've heard about, too, but resent having to learn how to use them.
I tell you, this country is going to the dogs, and fast!
Let people invent their own darn tools, I say.
Real folks just don't need 'em, and never did.
This city's already got too much stuff that it can't take care of.
I say stop this toolkit foolishness and save the money.
Heck, it didn't even seem like most Council members understood what a toolkit was for, either.
Who elected them to adopt a bunch of toolkits anyway?
Do they think they are rulers or something?
Are they on the level?
I don't trust 'em, and anyway its unfair to let them have tools when the rest of us have to make do with our hands and feet.
But, these elected officials will find out that we the people do have the ultimate power.
What I'm talking about is the right to run our mouths.
Anytime we want to, but especially after the fact, and fact-free.
And, we are free to do that whether somebody thinks we know what we're talking about or not!
You don't believe that? Just wait and see!
Hey, this is Amurica!
----------------------------
'Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit.' - Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)
----------------------------
This time, I'm really mad!
Not just average mad, but livid, outraged and angry.
The whole idea of the City Council giving lip service to the idea of adopting a TOOLKIT is ludicrous.
Why are they wasting time on something like this?
It's unnecessary, unworkable and maybe even un-American!
And to debate this worthless concept in public just demeans people who can't be at the meeting, or don't want to go.
Putting it on public TV is the icing on the cake, and that really frosts me, too.
First, why is any toolkit necessary?
In the old days, folks used to find a cave, or live in a place where the climate was good and food plentiful.
I resent having to pay for something that isn't needed, won't work and is too complicated.
That seems so artificial and wasteful.
Besides, to be affordable, most toolkits are probably made in another country, using inferior materials and workmanship, and having unintelligible instructions!
I resent that, plus having to understand every tool and how it is used.
Take a hammer for example. Why not use a rock?
Rocks are cheap, abundant and usually hard enough -even if they aren't exactly the right shape and size.
Besides, having access to a hammer tends to make folks think that every thing starts to look like a nail!
Why have people running around with tools designed to hit things?
Then, there's screwdrivers; whoever invented them?
And why did someone even carve the first screw? Didn't they have to use another tool to do that?
There are so many kinds and sizes of screwdrivers, too. Excessive!
Plus some idiot decided that screws need to turn to the right to work, most of the time.
Why right and not left? Some right-wing wing-nut probably thought that up to lord it over the rest of us.
Pliers are too dangerous for public use.
Why one could really pinch oneself, if they aren't careful.
And who wants to go around being careful all the time?
Its just another form of government meddling, and loss of individual rights!
There's a few other tools I've heard about, too, but resent having to learn how to use them.
I tell you, this country is going to the dogs, and fast!
Let people invent their own darn tools, I say.
Real folks just don't need 'em, and never did.
This city's already got too much stuff that it can't take care of.
I say stop this toolkit foolishness and save the money.
Heck, it didn't even seem like most Council members understood what a toolkit was for, either.
Who elected them to adopt a bunch of toolkits anyway?
Do they think they are rulers or something?
Are they on the level?
I don't trust 'em, and anyway its unfair to let them have tools when the rest of us have to make do with our hands and feet.
But, these elected officials will find out that we the people do have the ultimate power.
What I'm talking about is the right to run our mouths.
Anytime we want to, but especially after the fact, and fact-free.
And, we are free to do that whether somebody thinks we know what we're talking about or not!
You don't believe that? Just wait and see!
Hey, this is Amurica!
----------------------------
'Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit.' - Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)
----------------------------
Cheap Versus Free
---------------------------------------
An article in the current issue of New Yorker magazine by the insightful author Malcolm Gladwell discusses eloquently the difference between something that is cheap and something that is free.
Here's a hint; the difference is huge!
---------------------------------------
Gladwell first points up the problem with the rapid demise of traditional newspapers, which too long relied upon a business model that no longer applies.
As a result, people now rely upon free information from the Internet instead of buying newspapers that are quickly dated by fast-happening events.
News now costs little to nothing, but lost in this decline is the ability to even create in-depth news reports!
That sounds like a mixed bag to me.
Another example is the fast diminishing cost of producing transistors for use in electronic equipment of all types.
This trend does reduce the costs of electronics, but also the profitability of the very companies responsible for their R&D and production.
Another mixed bag.
But, the parallel I want to make is about taxes and the public services they provide for.
Everyone is as concerned with value received for taxes as they are with their own incomes, because the two are directly related.
And, there is no certain litmus test for determining who 'owns' this issue.
It isn't only rhetoric for political parties to bicker about.
It is a real social and economic issue that impacts everyone.
That brings me to the subject of the 'TEA Parties'.
Born of frustration and desperation for political traction, the deservedly diminished Republicans have seized upon taxes, yet again, to attract public attention and more importantly, public passion.
Even with the terrible economic climate -largely caused by irresponsible R spending on Iraq, the Wall Street bail-out, etc. - and the serious City budget crisis, they are willing to go there again!
Why, it's a wonder the words don't wither in their throats!
Do you think the R-TEAs see this as their best chance to whack the local 'guvmint' again while its already down, thereby paring services and programs they have resisted all along?
Things like Parks, Museum, Library are sitting ducks right now, not to speak of slimming down those over-staffed and over-paid Fire & Police Departments.
Brilliant!
While being out of power, the Rs will be claiming a major victory by slashing the City's budget AND its services.
How about that for a strategy?
But, wait.
Remember the difference between cheap and free?
When things are free, people flock to get their share, plus maybe a little more.
Just being cheap won't work when something can be had for free.
Breaking news:
Nothing is free!
Especially those things that are valued cannot be provided with zero revenues.
Like water, we will know its cost when the well is dry.
So, let's don't go there.
Don't even think about it!
Keep the things that are necessary and carefully pare down those that are only 'desirable' for quality of life.
These times will pass and better times will come again.
Listening to the siren call of the TEA Party crowd is a loser for this town and most people already know that.
If we opt for 'free' and do not expect to pay for things that we need or want, we will lose them.
It is just that simple.
Read the New Yorker article, then draw your own conclusions on this.
Last time I checked, the average home-ownwer's annual General Fund costs for City services was about $500, excluding the Greenways Levy which was voluntarily passed by the voting publc.
That seems pretty reasonable to me.
At least that's my opinion.
---------------------------------------
An article in the current issue of New Yorker magazine by the insightful author Malcolm Gladwell discusses eloquently the difference between something that is cheap and something that is free.
Here's a hint; the difference is huge!
---------------------------------------
Gladwell first points up the problem with the rapid demise of traditional newspapers, which too long relied upon a business model that no longer applies.
As a result, people now rely upon free information from the Internet instead of buying newspapers that are quickly dated by fast-happening events.
News now costs little to nothing, but lost in this decline is the ability to even create in-depth news reports!
That sounds like a mixed bag to me.
Another example is the fast diminishing cost of producing transistors for use in electronic equipment of all types.
This trend does reduce the costs of electronics, but also the profitability of the very companies responsible for their R&D and production.
Another mixed bag.
But, the parallel I want to make is about taxes and the public services they provide for.
Everyone is as concerned with value received for taxes as they are with their own incomes, because the two are directly related.
And, there is no certain litmus test for determining who 'owns' this issue.
It isn't only rhetoric for political parties to bicker about.
It is a real social and economic issue that impacts everyone.
That brings me to the subject of the 'TEA Parties'.
Born of frustration and desperation for political traction, the deservedly diminished Republicans have seized upon taxes, yet again, to attract public attention and more importantly, public passion.
Even with the terrible economic climate -largely caused by irresponsible R spending on Iraq, the Wall Street bail-out, etc. - and the serious City budget crisis, they are willing to go there again!
Why, it's a wonder the words don't wither in their throats!
Do you think the R-TEAs see this as their best chance to whack the local 'guvmint' again while its already down, thereby paring services and programs they have resisted all along?
Things like Parks, Museum, Library are sitting ducks right now, not to speak of slimming down those over-staffed and over-paid Fire & Police Departments.
Brilliant!
While being out of power, the Rs will be claiming a major victory by slashing the City's budget AND its services.
How about that for a strategy?
But, wait.
Remember the difference between cheap and free?
When things are free, people flock to get their share, plus maybe a little more.
Just being cheap won't work when something can be had for free.
Breaking news:
Nothing is free!
Especially those things that are valued cannot be provided with zero revenues.
Like water, we will know its cost when the well is dry.
So, let's don't go there.
Don't even think about it!
Keep the things that are necessary and carefully pare down those that are only 'desirable' for quality of life.
These times will pass and better times will come again.
Listening to the siren call of the TEA Party crowd is a loser for this town and most people already know that.
If we opt for 'free' and do not expect to pay for things that we need or want, we will lose them.
It is just that simple.
Read the New Yorker article, then draw your own conclusions on this.
Last time I checked, the average home-ownwer's annual General Fund costs for City services was about $500, excluding the Greenways Levy which was voluntarily passed by the voting publc.
That seems pretty reasonable to me.
At least that's my opinion.
---------------------------------------
Monday, June 29, 2009
A Tale of Two Cities: Role Models for Bellingham?
-----------------------------
A recent article in Crosscut was fascinating as it juxtaposed the positive and negative characteristics of two northwest cities, Seattle and Vancouver, BC.
What was really interesting was that expert representatives of each city had to advocate for the OTHER city!
That's an idea which requires serious role-playing and an honest effort to see, understand and support arguments and positions they would normally argue against.
Similar to a debating team format, where pro and con sides are selected in advance and the quality of arguments is monitored and rated by an audience and a jury, the method attempts to separate preconceived positions from rational concepts that can be widely understood and accepted.
Socrates would have loved this format, and probably would have been keen to argue both sides of the question himself.
It was that capacity for didactic argument and reasoning that made Socrates so unpopular in some influential circles, that were not at all comfortable with hearing opposing positions from the same person!
Yet that technique seems a very valuable one since it does identify legitimate pros and cons for reasonable consideration.
----------------
Here is a short list of good things about each city, remembering that the discussion is mainly about the built environments.
Vancouver, BC is great because it has:
Stanley Park
Real townhouses
No auto court six-packs
31 miles of mass transit
Consistent, visionary planning
More downtown residents
Skinny Towers that don't block views
More public waterfront access
Walkable neighborhoods
Bikeable streets
No downtown freeways
More cosmopolitan feel
More multi-cultural feel
More "granny flats"
Better new neighborhoods
Bike-borrowing program
More integrated design
More design focus on livability
Families downtown
Seattle is great because it has:
Unique neighborhood character
Downtown ferries
Pike Place Market
Hilly terrain
Local civic patrons
More money
Free downtown buses
Parking strip gardens
Olmsted legacy
Better residential architecture
More architectural risk-taking
Better downtown office towers
A less homogenized feel
More cultural institutions and events
University campuses integrated into the city
Streetcars
Major medical and research complexes
Westlake Plaza (Vancouver had no equivalent)
Seattle Center
As for the cons, both criticized their hometowns for significant failures.
Steinbrueck said of Seattle: "We've given up on families in the urban core."
Price said Vancouver's dirty secret was: "We've reached a very high level of mediocrity."
After the Q&A, the audience was asked to decide who won the debate. It was Gordon Price by a hair, which balanced things out nicely: Steinbrueck was voted the winner in Vancouver. Which produced the kind of result soccer cities can be happy with: a tie.
------------
This topic -now being addressed locally by a housing 'toolkit' -is already of interest locally, as it has rightfully has been for a quite a while.
Examples include our Comprehensive Plan, including the 23 Neighborhood Plan updates [now 24], every annexation discussion, every development proposal of any size, design standards & guidelines, waterfront & other redevelopment schemes, etc.
And this good, certainly better than the public ignoring discussions that could impact the city and its neighborhoods in ways that may not be desirable.
But, there is also the feeling among some that even discussing such a topic is tantamount to opening Pandora's box.
They seem to feel that avoidance is better, that delay is preferable, that blind fear is justified, and that the 'City' cannot be trusted.
That stance is just so much BS!
Some opponents are avowed single issue advocates, some recall experiences in other places that purportedly caused huge problems, some are so focused on ADUs [accessory dwelling units] that they can't get past that block.
And, some advocates have the simple misfortune to be classified as 'developers'.
Both advocates and opponents are correct in that some risks will be taken, even if they turn out to be imaginary.
The bottom line is that if the City really wants to do infill better, it needs better tools to do it.
If this is only about mixed use and multi-family housing areas it falls far short; single-family homes must be part of the mix because there do exist lots that are suitable for modest additional housing.
The Real question is, as it has been, how far do we want to go in telling someone else what they can do with their property?
There are practical limits on what makes sense here, folks.
Besides, we have a professional Hearing Examiner to provide consistent review and compliance with City ordinances and design criteria.
Then, there is the neighborhood review process which gets the true input from those likely to be most affected.
Regarding the perceived 'complexity' of the proposed 'Toolkit', when has that claim NOT been made?
There has to be some thoughtful guidelines to be fair and consistent.
Besides, use of the Toolkit is voluntary, not mandatory!
The Toolkit is available for those who wish to use it, period.
So, what is the problem -really?
It is certainly NOT the loss of our single-family neighborhoods!
Did you know that the proposed Toolkit was essentially 'borrowed' from Seattle, a city renowned for the excellence of its neighborhoods.
Let's get serious about this issue and get on with the business of creating more design options, green practices, affordability and land use efficiency.
At some point, citizens will need to connect the dots that this exercise has not happened out of thin air.
This project has been the result of many public planning sessions, careful thought and hundreds of hours of professional staff time.
To dismiss it with knee-jerk reactions is simply not responsible or appropriate, and demeans the effort expended as well as the reasonable intent behind it.
To mouth the words 'I'm all for infill', and then badmouth reasonable attempts to actually implement it, seems disingenuous at best.
Every Toolkit, ordinance or guideline developed will never please everyone, although each will undoubtedly obtain as much public process and consensus as is possible.
I do hope the City will approve this Toolkit in some form after its planned due process, because it does represent a step forward for the City.
Otherwise, we are spinning our wheels and wasting everyone's time.
If, for some reason, the final version of the Toolkit proves unworkable or otherwise undesirable, it can always be modified or rescinded.
Let's don't forget that.
-----------------------------------------
A recent article in Crosscut was fascinating as it juxtaposed the positive and negative characteristics of two northwest cities, Seattle and Vancouver, BC.
What was really interesting was that expert representatives of each city had to advocate for the OTHER city!
That's an idea which requires serious role-playing and an honest effort to see, understand and support arguments and positions they would normally argue against.
Similar to a debating team format, where pro and con sides are selected in advance and the quality of arguments is monitored and rated by an audience and a jury, the method attempts to separate preconceived positions from rational concepts that can be widely understood and accepted.
Socrates would have loved this format, and probably would have been keen to argue both sides of the question himself.
It was that capacity for didactic argument and reasoning that made Socrates so unpopular in some influential circles, that were not at all comfortable with hearing opposing positions from the same person!
Yet that technique seems a very valuable one since it does identify legitimate pros and cons for reasonable consideration.
----------------
Here is a short list of good things about each city, remembering that the discussion is mainly about the built environments.
Vancouver, BC is great because it has:
Stanley Park
Real townhouses
No auto court six-packs
31 miles of mass transit
Consistent, visionary planning
More downtown residents
Skinny Towers that don't block views
More public waterfront access
Walkable neighborhoods
Bikeable streets
No downtown freeways
More cosmopolitan feel
More multi-cultural feel
More "granny flats"
Better new neighborhoods
Bike-borrowing program
More integrated design
More design focus on livability
Families downtown
Seattle is great because it has:
Unique neighborhood character
Downtown ferries
Pike Place Market
Hilly terrain
Local civic patrons
More money
Free downtown buses
Parking strip gardens
Olmsted legacy
Better residential architecture
More architectural risk-taking
Better downtown office towers
A less homogenized feel
More cultural institutions and events
University campuses integrated into the city
Streetcars
Major medical and research complexes
Westlake Plaza (Vancouver had no equivalent)
Seattle Center
As for the cons, both criticized their hometowns for significant failures.
Steinbrueck said of Seattle: "We've given up on families in the urban core."
Price said Vancouver's dirty secret was: "We've reached a very high level of mediocrity."
After the Q&A, the audience was asked to decide who won the debate. It was Gordon Price by a hair, which balanced things out nicely: Steinbrueck was voted the winner in Vancouver. Which produced the kind of result soccer cities can be happy with: a tie.
------------
This topic -now being addressed locally by a housing 'toolkit' -is already of interest locally, as it has rightfully has been for a quite a while.
Examples include our Comprehensive Plan, including the 23 Neighborhood Plan updates [now 24], every annexation discussion, every development proposal of any size, design standards & guidelines, waterfront & other redevelopment schemes, etc.
And this good, certainly better than the public ignoring discussions that could impact the city and its neighborhoods in ways that may not be desirable.
But, there is also the feeling among some that even discussing such a topic is tantamount to opening Pandora's box.
They seem to feel that avoidance is better, that delay is preferable, that blind fear is justified, and that the 'City' cannot be trusted.
That stance is just so much BS!
Some opponents are avowed single issue advocates, some recall experiences in other places that purportedly caused huge problems, some are so focused on ADUs [accessory dwelling units] that they can't get past that block.
And, some advocates have the simple misfortune to be classified as 'developers'.
Both advocates and opponents are correct in that some risks will be taken, even if they turn out to be imaginary.
The bottom line is that if the City really wants to do infill better, it needs better tools to do it.
If this is only about mixed use and multi-family housing areas it falls far short; single-family homes must be part of the mix because there do exist lots that are suitable for modest additional housing.
The Real question is, as it has been, how far do we want to go in telling someone else what they can do with their property?
There are practical limits on what makes sense here, folks.
Besides, we have a professional Hearing Examiner to provide consistent review and compliance with City ordinances and design criteria.
Then, there is the neighborhood review process which gets the true input from those likely to be most affected.
Regarding the perceived 'complexity' of the proposed 'Toolkit', when has that claim NOT been made?
There has to be some thoughtful guidelines to be fair and consistent.
Besides, use of the Toolkit is voluntary, not mandatory!
The Toolkit is available for those who wish to use it, period.
So, what is the problem -really?
It is certainly NOT the loss of our single-family neighborhoods!
Did you know that the proposed Toolkit was essentially 'borrowed' from Seattle, a city renowned for the excellence of its neighborhoods.
Let's get serious about this issue and get on with the business of creating more design options, green practices, affordability and land use efficiency.
At some point, citizens will need to connect the dots that this exercise has not happened out of thin air.
This project has been the result of many public planning sessions, careful thought and hundreds of hours of professional staff time.
To dismiss it with knee-jerk reactions is simply not responsible or appropriate, and demeans the effort expended as well as the reasonable intent behind it.
To mouth the words 'I'm all for infill', and then badmouth reasonable attempts to actually implement it, seems disingenuous at best.
Every Toolkit, ordinance or guideline developed will never please everyone, although each will undoubtedly obtain as much public process and consensus as is possible.
I do hope the City will approve this Toolkit in some form after its planned due process, because it does represent a step forward for the City.
Otherwise, we are spinning our wheels and wasting everyone's time.
If, for some reason, the final version of the Toolkit proves unworkable or otherwise undesirable, it can always be modified or rescinded.
Let's don't forget that.
-----------------------------------------
Saturday, June 27, 2009
On Kings & Things
---------------------------------
The recent sudden death of Michael Jackson, the 'King of Pop', has caused a sensation and a self-perpetuating media frenzy.
It also points up something about us as a society; that we desperately want -crave- heroes that we can idolize.
That seems true whether they are real heroes, entertainers, sports stars, egregious villains, the super wealthy or political figures are chosen.
Human nature is a strange beast that manifests itself in patterns through history.
And, sometimes, history itself seems to magnify and distort popular opinion.
Those two words, 'popular opinion' are key.
Popular means accepted by many or most people.
Opinion means perception, whether fact-based or not.
Interesting, that after centuries of learning and advances in science that we are still ruled by our senses, emotions and perceptions, isn't it?
Sir Francis Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, John Locke can also be thought of as popular figures in history, but they do not begin to rise to the level of Muhammad Ali, Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson in the hearts and minds of most members of the American public.
Hard to say why that is so, but I expect it has to do with emotions being accessed before thoughts.
Like the heart always seems to trump the head in matters of love or other strong emotions.
----------
Over 200 years ago, I expect things were similar in the midst of George Washington's immense popularity following the War of Independence.
Back then, folks were keen to make GW 'King for Life', not just President.
But, wise old George had other ideas.
He wanted to return to private life, not that he regretted spending about 50 years in the service of his country.
No, Washington was essentially a modest man, with strong ethics, work habits and a quiet sense of duty.
He is my preferred type of hero, and history only seems to enhance his image.
Even that other George -King George of England- thought our George Washington to be 'the greatest man in history' because he willingly gave up power!
Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Once a King, always a King - they like all that monarchy stuff that we fought to escape.
But, now we seem to crave 'kings' of a different sort; ones that can entertain us in ways that we enjoy -often without thinking required, just plain feeling without any lasting obligation aside from the costs which we willingly pay.
And, the new 'kings' seem to crave the spotlight, and the fame and the fortune it brings, until it's not much fun for them anymore.
They often become captives of their own success, seek privacy, develop coping mechanisms, and suffer in their own unique ways that are hard for their fans to understand.
I suspect that some would like to return to private life, like George Washington did.
But, maybe without the satisfaction of real sacrifice and public service?
I don't know.
At some point, I have to think that some kinds of success are inherently more rewarding than others.
But, that is not to say some modern 'kings' have not contributed mightily to humanitarian causes, and have developed strong values and goals in their lives, and set good examples.
It just seems sad that so many of today's 'kings' seem so shallow, trapped in materialism, hounded by the media, and doomed to a life that becomes less and less rewarding and satisfying to them.
Part of human nature, I guess.
I suspect that particular exploration and mastery is our real challenge and frontier.
Nobody knows...
----------------------
"If we keep going the way we are going, we are going to end up where we are headed." - Groucho Marx
-----------------------
The recent sudden death of Michael Jackson, the 'King of Pop', has caused a sensation and a self-perpetuating media frenzy.
It also points up something about us as a society; that we desperately want -crave- heroes that we can idolize.
That seems true whether they are real heroes, entertainers, sports stars, egregious villains, the super wealthy or political figures are chosen.
Human nature is a strange beast that manifests itself in patterns through history.
And, sometimes, history itself seems to magnify and distort popular opinion.
Those two words, 'popular opinion' are key.
Popular means accepted by many or most people.
Opinion means perception, whether fact-based or not.
Interesting, that after centuries of learning and advances in science that we are still ruled by our senses, emotions and perceptions, isn't it?
Sir Francis Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, John Locke can also be thought of as popular figures in history, but they do not begin to rise to the level of Muhammad Ali, Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson in the hearts and minds of most members of the American public.
Hard to say why that is so, but I expect it has to do with emotions being accessed before thoughts.
Like the heart always seems to trump the head in matters of love or other strong emotions.
----------
Over 200 years ago, I expect things were similar in the midst of George Washington's immense popularity following the War of Independence.
Back then, folks were keen to make GW 'King for Life', not just President.
But, wise old George had other ideas.
He wanted to return to private life, not that he regretted spending about 50 years in the service of his country.
No, Washington was essentially a modest man, with strong ethics, work habits and a quiet sense of duty.
He is my preferred type of hero, and history only seems to enhance his image.
Even that other George -King George of England- thought our George Washington to be 'the greatest man in history' because he willingly gave up power!
Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Once a King, always a King - they like all that monarchy stuff that we fought to escape.
But, now we seem to crave 'kings' of a different sort; ones that can entertain us in ways that we enjoy -often without thinking required, just plain feeling without any lasting obligation aside from the costs which we willingly pay.
And, the new 'kings' seem to crave the spotlight, and the fame and the fortune it brings, until it's not much fun for them anymore.
They often become captives of their own success, seek privacy, develop coping mechanisms, and suffer in their own unique ways that are hard for their fans to understand.
I suspect that some would like to return to private life, like George Washington did.
But, maybe without the satisfaction of real sacrifice and public service?
I don't know.
At some point, I have to think that some kinds of success are inherently more rewarding than others.
But, that is not to say some modern 'kings' have not contributed mightily to humanitarian causes, and have developed strong values and goals in their lives, and set good examples.
It just seems sad that so many of today's 'kings' seem so shallow, trapped in materialism, hounded by the media, and doomed to a life that becomes less and less rewarding and satisfying to them.
Part of human nature, I guess.
I suspect that particular exploration and mastery is our real challenge and frontier.
Nobody knows...
----------------------
"If we keep going the way we are going, we are going to end up where we are headed." - Groucho Marx
-----------------------
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Population Forecasts: Numerology or Just Mind-Numbing?
-----------------------------------------------
'Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell'
- Edward Abbey
-----------------------------------------------
Of course, ALL growth isn't necessarily bad.
Just look at agricultural products, the economy, scientific knowledge, kids becoming adults and the like.
The two things that set cancer cells apart are that they grow very fast and have malignant results.
Regarding population growth, that seems to be a reality that we can only plan for the best way we can.
So, here we go again, and so soon after the last Comprehensive Plan brouhaha, too.
Anyway, earlier this year, the City obtained a consultant's report which was duly reviewed by the Planning Commission which issued its Findings of Fact and Recommendations for the City Council's input and the County's eventual approval.
This blog won't go into a lot more detail, but those interested can access these reports and related others by going to the City's website, then searching on 'OFM Growth Projections'.
I attempted links to the above report and Findings, but they don't work directly;
The report is at "http://www.cob.org/documents/planning/Planning%20Commission/city-council-memorandum-growth-projection.pdf".
And, the Findings are at "http://www.cob.org/documents/planning/Planning%20Commission/growth-fndings-of-fact.pdf.
Instead, here is one question from the report, plus a summary of the various population growth projections reviewed by the Planning Commission:
-----------------------------------------------
Question 5: What are the legal requirements with respect to adoption of population growth forecasts?
Response: The GMA and hearings board cases have made it clear that population growth forecasts used in the preparation of comprehensive plans must be within the range provided by the State Office of Financial Management.
The OFM 2031 forecast range for Whatcom County is approximately 220,000 to 330,000 with a “baseline” forecast of 264,400. (OFM lists the baseline forecast as the “most likely to occur” scenario).
OFM does not provide population growth forecasts for individual cities.
It is up to the County, working with the cities, to allocate the county-wide growth forecast to the individual jurisdictions.
-----------------------------------------------
Table 1 – 2031 County-wide Population Growth Forecasts
2031 County-wide Population Growth Forecast
OFM Low Forecast 220,000
SEPA No Action Alternative (current comp. plans) 234,917
GMCC Recommendation 251,490
Consultant/Staff TAG Recommendation 256,950
EIS Alts. X and Y Forecast 258,450
OFM Baseline Forecast 264,400
OFM High Growth Forecast 330,000
-----------------------------------------------
You decide whether the Planning Commission is on the right track.
I think they probably are, because this equates to the City eventually accommodating a little over 44% of the County's population growth, and it is BELOW the OFM Baseline Forecast. [see report]
Last time around the City adopted a projection that equated to over 51% of county-wide growth.
And that was after a significant correction in the County's overall growth projection to just OVER the OFM baseline number.
Readers can also see from the City's report that the actual growth rate experienced by the City was less than that estimated.
Right, wrong or indifferent, the County doesn't want the City annexing any more land.
And, the City doesn't seem to want to annex more either, especially with the current strain on revenues. constraint on services, and the mind-set of several electeds.
So, something will have to give, won't it?
What do you think that will be?
Given the prevailing attitudes, it means that the the smaller cities and the unincorporated areas of the County will continue to accept more of the growth than they claim they want or are planning for.
To me, that would simply prove the following:
There is truth in the statement that the only thing people dislike more than sprawl is in-fill!
And that includes even in-fill that is appropriate, like Old Town, King Mountain, the Waterfront Redevelopment, and, yes, Chuckanut Ridge -or whatever it is now being called.
Does it seem to you like this growth planning exercise has become just a monumental waste of time?
Maybe we should just let the County decide, so we can spend full time bitching, arguing among ourselves, and generally being in denial of the good things that could be accomplished with good growth planning?
But then, how often does good planning deliver the results anticipated?
Implementation is the main problem, and I don't believe we have the tools, the political will, or the collective discipline required to consistently make progress in the direction we claim to want.
So, what we can do is simply try to slow down all population growth and prevent what growth does occur from becoming 'malignant' by some definition.
But, hey, aren't those things what growth planning is supposed to be about?
-----------------------------------------------
'Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell'
- Edward Abbey
-----------------------------------------------
Of course, ALL growth isn't necessarily bad.
Just look at agricultural products, the economy, scientific knowledge, kids becoming adults and the like.
The two things that set cancer cells apart are that they grow very fast and have malignant results.
Regarding population growth, that seems to be a reality that we can only plan for the best way we can.
So, here we go again, and so soon after the last Comprehensive Plan brouhaha, too.
Anyway, earlier this year, the City obtained a consultant's report which was duly reviewed by the Planning Commission which issued its Findings of Fact and Recommendations for the City Council's input and the County's eventual approval.
This blog won't go into a lot more detail, but those interested can access these reports and related others by going to the City's website, then searching on 'OFM Growth Projections'.
I attempted links to the above report and Findings, but they don't work directly;
The report is at "http://www.cob.org/documents/planning/Planning%20Commission/city-council-memorandum-growth-projection.pdf".
And, the Findings are at "http://www.cob.org/documents/planning/Planning%20Commission/growth-fndings-of-fact.pdf.
Instead, here is one question from the report, plus a summary of the various population growth projections reviewed by the Planning Commission:
-----------------------------------------------
Question 5: What are the legal requirements with respect to adoption of population growth forecasts?
Response: The GMA and hearings board cases have made it clear that population growth forecasts used in the preparation of comprehensive plans must be within the range provided by the State Office of Financial Management.
The OFM 2031 forecast range for Whatcom County is approximately 220,000 to 330,000 with a “baseline” forecast of 264,400. (OFM lists the baseline forecast as the “most likely to occur” scenario).
OFM does not provide population growth forecasts for individual cities.
It is up to the County, working with the cities, to allocate the county-wide growth forecast to the individual jurisdictions.
-----------------------------------------------
Table 1 – 2031 County-wide Population Growth Forecasts
2031 County-wide Population Growth Forecast
OFM Low Forecast 220,000
SEPA No Action Alternative (current comp. plans) 234,917
GMCC Recommendation 251,490
Consultant/Staff TAG Recommendation 256,950
EIS Alts. X and Y Forecast 258,450
OFM Baseline Forecast 264,400
OFM High Growth Forecast 330,000
-----------------------------------------------
You decide whether the Planning Commission is on the right track.
I think they probably are, because this equates to the City eventually accommodating a little over 44% of the County's population growth, and it is BELOW the OFM Baseline Forecast. [see report]
Last time around the City adopted a projection that equated to over 51% of county-wide growth.
And that was after a significant correction in the County's overall growth projection to just OVER the OFM baseline number.
Readers can also see from the City's report that the actual growth rate experienced by the City was less than that estimated.
Right, wrong or indifferent, the County doesn't want the City annexing any more land.
And, the City doesn't seem to want to annex more either, especially with the current strain on revenues. constraint on services, and the mind-set of several electeds.
So, something will have to give, won't it?
What do you think that will be?
Given the prevailing attitudes, it means that the the smaller cities and the unincorporated areas of the County will continue to accept more of the growth than they claim they want or are planning for.
To me, that would simply prove the following:
There is truth in the statement that the only thing people dislike more than sprawl is in-fill!
And that includes even in-fill that is appropriate, like Old Town, King Mountain, the Waterfront Redevelopment, and, yes, Chuckanut Ridge -or whatever it is now being called.
Does it seem to you like this growth planning exercise has become just a monumental waste of time?
Maybe we should just let the County decide, so we can spend full time bitching, arguing among ourselves, and generally being in denial of the good things that could be accomplished with good growth planning?
But then, how often does good planning deliver the results anticipated?
Implementation is the main problem, and I don't believe we have the tools, the political will, or the collective discipline required to consistently make progress in the direction we claim to want.
So, what we can do is simply try to slow down all population growth and prevent what growth does occur from becoming 'malignant' by some definition.
But, hey, aren't those things what growth planning is supposed to be about?
-----------------------------------------------
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Draft Sewer Plan: Perpetually Unfinished Business
----------------------
This will offer 20 or so questions, several early answers from our former Public Works Director, plus a few comments from me submitted about 2 years ago.
But, the date really has little to do with this perpetually unfinished business, which will come up again and again.
And, because our sewer system -like our water system- is a Municipal Enterprise, its funding, including capital improvements, is funded by utility rates that system users pay.
That is not to say we don't have to be prudent and careful with the management of this fund, and the rates and system development charges that provide its revenue.
Anyway, rather than keeping this buried in my draft file, I might as well post it so those interested can read it or refer to it.
So, here goes:
-----------------------
How many people do you know who would willingly spend all day Saturday reading over 300 pages of a draft Sewer Plan?
OK, maybe a few engineers might do that.
Otherwise, only people like City Council members would do it, because they will need to understand why planning 20 years into the future is necessary, in order to justify making some important decisions that will affect how our sewer system must be expanded and upgraded, and these improvements paid for over that time.
Most people take sewers for granted as a basic necessity that is just -somehow- provided.
That's good, because the folks who operate our sewer system and waste treatment plant prefer to remain very low profile!
Remaining low profile means things are operating smoothly with little if any problems that can be noticed by citizens.
Bet you didn't know these fascinating facts:
• The City operates 324 miles of wastewater collection systems
• The Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant has a peak capacity of 72 million gallons per day
• The City's sewer service area covers 30 square miles and serves 83,000 customers
• The elevation ranges from sea level to a height of 800 feet
• Treated wastewater is discharged into Bellingham Bay
• Treatment of wastewater is closely regulated by the State Dept of Ecology
• Population growth over the next 20 years will require building capital facilities costing about $191 million [factoring in estimated inflation]
• All of this funding must be raised either from ratepayers [2/3] or public Revenue Bonds [1/3]
• The Sewer Utility operates as an Enterprise Fund, which means its costs of operation must be matched by its revenues.
• Some carefully considered increases to both sewer rates and system development charges must be adopted to meet projected needs.
---------------------
With this brief background it may be easier to understand why this topic should be of more than passing interest to everyone.
That is why this afternoon's Council Work Session was important.
Unfortunately, this meeting was not televised on BTV10, or well-attended, which is why I'm mentioning this subject in this blog.
In preparation for this meeting, I asked the 20 sets of questions shown below, and obtained early answers to most of them before the issue was tabled for more work and future consideration.
Answers given to these are summarized following each question.
Answers to the rest await their being asked again.
Stay tuned to see what decisions this -or a future- Council will make on this important issue
---------------------
Questions & Answers
---------------------
Q1. The Sewer system dynamics make a good illustration of what is meant by 'level of service', and can also be applied to transportation.
By identifying pinch points and suggesting parallel piping, larger piping, holding tanks and combined flow mitigation,
these have direct counterparts to handling traffic.
A1. Agreed regarding traffic. That's why we have Deemer, Cordata and Eliza parallel to the Guide.
---------------------
Q2. In the various scenarios, I don't see the idea of relocating the big interceptor that crosses Whatcom Creek.
Was this idea considered?
What is the estimated cost?
Is this the time to consider such an idea?
A2. We don't have the Whatcom Creek pipe in because relocating it doesn't help the sewer system.
We can do it by adding a pump station on one side of the creek.
It is millions and purely optional.
We can do it anytime someone provides the money.
---------------------
Q3. Regarding the proposed C Street Remote Storage facility, would this be located near or on waterfront property?
Is this included in waterfront redevelopment planning?
Will this idea serve to excite the neighborhood?
A3. C Street would be a large vault built under the renovated C Street at the waterfront.
Maybe 50 feet wide, 500 feet long and 20 feet deep.
We would essentially drive on the roof.
---------------------
Q4. Sewer service is a valuable commodity!
Do we need to reserve our existing capacity preferentially for in-City use?
How does this impact annexations and/or service to Water District?
A4. Quick feedback while working on the bigger answers: the sewer interlocal from 1974 does not expire after 20 years.
It says that the term is for a period of AT LEAST 20 years.
That means that it goes forever unless we mutually agree to a new agreement. I have contacted LWWSD to start the process.
A4. The Comp Plan planning section reviews the entire service area and takes into account the population projects and update TAZ data to determine adequate sanitary sewer capacity. The intent of the plan is to have a living document that can be updated as necessary. There is ‘no reserve’ but rather built in capacity for the densities that have been approved for current in-fill strategies. Example: if a future Council decided on limiting service to an area but wanted to expand density in another, the plan could be amended to achieve this goal or the capacity is already built-in to the system. How does this impact annexations and/or service to Water District? Generally, most annexations are in areas within the City’s UGA and those areas have been included in the planning/capacity analysis for this particular comprehensive plan. Unless during the annexation process zoning changes were being recommended to increase densities that may have not been originally planned for, there is again, built in capacity for those annexations. The City only serves one Water District with sanitary sewer service, LWWSD and the flows from that District are included in this plan based on 1) contract amount and the draft LWWSD comp plan.
---------------------
Q5. Do we charge SDCs for the Water District? Can we? If not, can we raise sewer rates sufficiently to cover this subsidy?
What does 'average GPM' flow rate translate to in terms of peak flow?
If we increase SDC for city dwellers, doesn't that mean the Water District gets an increase?
Where do we stand in renegotiating the Interlocal with the Water District?
It was signed in 1974 and was to be in effect for 20 years. That ended in 1994!
I know rate increases will be 50% higher in proportion to the City, but is this enough?
A5. Yes, [we do charge SDCs for the Water District] however, the only District receiving sewer service is LWWSD and they have a contract that allows for a specific amount of sewage flow, therefore, we would not be able to charge an SDC for each one of their internal customers that are connecting to their system. We could, if a new district required service charge the provider for the new main connection and service to the City’s system, i.e. Ferndale or Lummi, etc…
Q5. Can we? If not, can we raise sewer rates sufficiently to cover this subsidy?
A5. The SDC are a ‘buy-in+growth’ concept that the Council approved during the 2004 ‘cost-of-service’ model rate study. If a District where to ask for a new connection, the SDC would apply. The SDC is based on ‘meter size equivalent’ so generally there is really no ‘subsidy’ here.
Q5. What does 'average GPM' flow rate translate to in terms of peak flow?
A5. Depending on the context, but ‘average GPM’ is the expected flow in the system or from a customer on average over a specific time period. The industry usually uses ‘average annual GPM’ or ‘average annual daily flow.’ ‘Peak flow’ is the highest expected flow rate during a specific period of time; it can be in a daily format or an annual flow rate depending on whether one is discussing water or wastewater. In wastewater, we generally use daily peak flows as our way to gauge sizing of components and facilities.
Q5. If we increase SDC for city dwellers, doesn't that mean the Water District gets an increase?
A5. SDC are only paid at the time of permit, we would not be issuing any new permits to a water district unless they were to ask for a new connection. So, raising SDC for all new customers, inside and outside of the City only affects those services that are directly connected to the City’s sanitary sewer service.
Q5. Where do we stand in renegotiating the Interlocal with the Water District?
A5. The City is currently reviewing the Interlocal Agreement and is in the process of trying to reopen the process for negotiating. Internal meetings are on-going to outline strategies and objectives. The sewer interlocal from 1974 does not expire after 20 years. It says that the term is for a period of AT LEAST 20 years. That means that it goes forever unless we mutually agree to a new agreement.
Q5. It was signed in 1974 and was to be in effect for 20 years. That ended in 1994!
I know rate increases will be 50% higher in proportion to the City, but is this enough?
Q5. The Cost-of-Service model includes an analysis that accounts for the revenue generated by the 1974 agreement and subsequent payment options on new facilities, i.e. Oak St Lift Station Upgrade in 2005.
---------------------
Q6. Section 3 assumes the County will OK the City's request for additional UGA land supply.
Since this is in question, how will less land supply impact the analysis of future needs?
A6. The analysis is conservative in nature and as a living document with an active hydraulic model it is intended to be updated and used on a continual basis; the plan can be modified as planning scenarios change and growth is either slowing or increasing. We will update and reevaluate the CIP on a regular basis to ensure that our targets are being met.
---------------------
Q7. Are there further plans for separating sanitary and storm water, aside from reducing existing I & I?
A7. In 1978-1982, the City undertook a huge storm/sewer separation project that basically removed all known storm water from the sanitary system with some exceptions and no removal of roof drains from property owners. We are constantly evaluating the sanitary system through portable and permanent flow meters to determine unknown sources of storm water into the system. There are several large storm pipes that are in need of separation but unfortunately, no storm systems exists in the drainage area nor are those pipes easily constructed at this time due to existing structures and topography. These are in the downtown area, along the waterfront and it is expected that as the waterfront develops, these will be separated into new storm systems.
---------------------
Q8. Since Yew Street has not been up-zoned, why is the extension to Samish Way at Lake Padden needed?
A8. There are existing homes that are in need of sanitary sewer that would remove septic systems from the Lake Padden drainage area.
---------------------
Q9. There are expensive plans in Chapter 7 for sewer line extensions west of the airport and east of I-5.
Are these considered likely annexations?
If not, why plan for them?
A9. Annexations and their likelihood were derived from the Planning Dept and it’s direction from Council. It is not fully known on annexation timeliness nor likelihood. However, these areas are within the City’s planning area for wastewater service and thus need to be considered in the calculations at this time.
---------------------
Q10. What are our plans for providing sewers to currently un-sewered areas in the City, like the South Neighborhood?
Is significant growth likely for this area? Enough to justify costs?
A10. The City approached this neighborhood in the mid-90’s as a potential candidate for a Utility LID (Local Improvement District) but after analysis the cost did not justify the improvements. Depending on neighborhood sentiment and growth, it may be advantageous to review this again.
---------------------
Q11. The suggestions for eliminating bottlenecks, increasing efficiency, changing treatment technology and expanding unit processes and unit operations at Post Point seem well-conceived and phased.
What is the practical limit on this site?
I note a hydraulic capacity expansion to 82 mgd is suggested.
Is that the maximum likely?
What are plans once Post Point's ultimate capacity is reached?
A11. The site expansion would be limited for any continued expansion to the west and south by the new recommended improvements being built in 2009-2012. The City’s purchase of the McKenzie Ave property allows for some additional growth beyond the current proposal most likely into 2030. After that, if no additional property is obtained to the north (Port of Bellingham land) then possible upgrades to existing process with newer technologies that do not require larger footprints may be an option.
Q11. note a hydraulic capacity expansion to 82 mgd is suggested. Is that the maximum likely?
A11. The City has experienced flows at the WWTP around 72MGD instantaneous, so the 82 MGD and the higher 107MGD are good planning numbers that are consistent with growth projections and the planning storm of 2004.
Q11. What are plans once Post Point's ultimate capacity is reached?
A11. Hydraulically, additional collection system storage or high rate treatment facilities may be necessary within the collection system at key conveyance points to meet futre needs, similar to what is being recommended for the collection system in 2012.
---------------------
Q12. What about nutrient removal? Is this for Nitrogen? Will it work on Phosphorus?
Where is DOE coming from on this?
When does our existing NPDES permit expire?
A12. Based on discussions with DOE, nutrient limits (ammonia, N, and/or P) are not likely to be imposed during the planning period. Furthermore, the current recommended expansion is not designed to provide nutrient removal per se (although bio-P is provided via the anaerobic selector). The planned expansion can be modified if needed at some future date, to accommodate nutrient removal. The City received its new NPDES permit on November 02, 2007, it is good for 5 years from that date.
---------------------
Q13. Recommended conveyance systems improvements fall largely at the edges of City limits, some in UGAs.
If the City must finance these prior to annexation, isn't that an undue burden on existing taxpayers?
Will Latecomers fees recover all these costs?
A13. If any utility improvements are installed by ratepayer funds, the City will assess property owners a future latecomer fee to access the system. Another possible way to achieve improvements prior to annexation or during would be to form a Utility LID. Costs that are associated with capacity are rolled into the SDCs and new developer pays the buy-in + growth, thus paying back the cost that the City incurred to make the necessary capacity available to the new customer.
---------------------
Q14. Chapter '11' for Capital Improvements Plan is scary!
But, seriously, the Basis for Estimated Cost on page 11-5 is interesting.
Can or should this methodology be applied to other capital projects?
Like a Library?
A14. Yes, many other organizations, especially the Federal Government use ‘Cost Basis of Estimate’ or BOE. The Cost Basis of Estimate provides a record of the procedures, ground rules and assumptions, data, environment, and events that underlie a cost estimate’s development or update. Good documentation supports the cost estimate’s credibility, aids in the analysis of changes in program cost, enables reviewers to effectively assess the cost estimate, and contributes to the population of data bases for estimating the cost of future programs.
---------------------
Q15. Thank goodness this isn't Chapter 11!
Good job of presenting the results of many complex activities and projects.
The point needs to be made clearly these total $110 million in present day costs.
The $191 million takes into account escalation over time and on time.
Regardless, it is good news that only 30% of the total amount must be raised from bonds, grants and other sources other than rates & SDCs.
Having to raise $33 million present day or $60 million escalated will be far more acceptable for Council to approve.
A15. No comments received.
---------------------
Q16. The rate increases of 7% for 2008 and 7.68% for 2009 are OK with me because they do seem necessary because they address a known deficiency earlier rather than later.
But, some others may feel differently and an alternate phasing might be advisable to have in your back pocket.
A16. Phasing options will be available for discussion.
---------------------
Q17. The SDC increases are quite substantial and will probably be fought by the BIA and others.
So, timing is important! Maybe early December after elections?
You might also consider a phasing plan for SDCs, although its probably better to just get beaten up once instead of multiple times.
But, a $4201 increase over the existing $3436 SDC is a big jump! 122%
A17. This will be something that we will want to discuss at the November 19th Council session on water/sewer rates.
A phasing plan is always an option and if Council like to explore the possibility of phasing the SDC, we will have several courses of action to choose from.
---------------------
Q18. The comparison to other cities on page 12-15 is useful.
But only Kirkland is shown as having a higher SDC AFTER we increase ours.
That may be a negative.
A18. No comments received.
---------------------
Q19. Appendix D - Water District Agreement needs revisiting!
I know we can't rescind it, but we can change it!
Changes in circumstances is really all we have to claim.
Since 1974 we have finally discovered Lake Whatcom is our reservoir and taken significant action to protect it.
Those actions cost dearly and all parties need to share more equitably!
Sudden Valley should not be considered a low cost community.
Other developments around the Lake are certainly not low cost either!
This sewer agreement is leverage the City ought to be using better.
A19. No comments received.
---------------------
Q20. It would be nice to get the changes is SDCs and rates into the 2008 budget, whether before we approve on Nov 26 or early next year.
But, if Water rates and Stormwater rates are to be increased as well, you need to think about what's most important and start with that.
It will be very nice to get these big utility funds updated to last several years into the future, regardless of administration.
Including phased increases is a very smart way to do that, for multiple reasons.
A20. No comments received.
---------------------
This will offer 20 or so questions, several early answers from our former Public Works Director, plus a few comments from me submitted about 2 years ago.
But, the date really has little to do with this perpetually unfinished business, which will come up again and again.
And, because our sewer system -like our water system- is a Municipal Enterprise, its funding, including capital improvements, is funded by utility rates that system users pay.
That is not to say we don't have to be prudent and careful with the management of this fund, and the rates and system development charges that provide its revenue.
Anyway, rather than keeping this buried in my draft file, I might as well post it so those interested can read it or refer to it.
So, here goes:
-----------------------
How many people do you know who would willingly spend all day Saturday reading over 300 pages of a draft Sewer Plan?
OK, maybe a few engineers might do that.
Otherwise, only people like City Council members would do it, because they will need to understand why planning 20 years into the future is necessary, in order to justify making some important decisions that will affect how our sewer system must be expanded and upgraded, and these improvements paid for over that time.
Most people take sewers for granted as a basic necessity that is just -somehow- provided.
That's good, because the folks who operate our sewer system and waste treatment plant prefer to remain very low profile!
Remaining low profile means things are operating smoothly with little if any problems that can be noticed by citizens.
Bet you didn't know these fascinating facts:
• The City operates 324 miles of wastewater collection systems
• The Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant has a peak capacity of 72 million gallons per day
• The City's sewer service area covers 30 square miles and serves 83,000 customers
• The elevation ranges from sea level to a height of 800 feet
• Treated wastewater is discharged into Bellingham Bay
• Treatment of wastewater is closely regulated by the State Dept of Ecology
• Population growth over the next 20 years will require building capital facilities costing about $191 million [factoring in estimated inflation]
• All of this funding must be raised either from ratepayers [2/3] or public Revenue Bonds [1/3]
• The Sewer Utility operates as an Enterprise Fund, which means its costs of operation must be matched by its revenues.
• Some carefully considered increases to both sewer rates and system development charges must be adopted to meet projected needs.
---------------------
With this brief background it may be easier to understand why this topic should be of more than passing interest to everyone.
That is why this afternoon's Council Work Session was important.
Unfortunately, this meeting was not televised on BTV10, or well-attended, which is why I'm mentioning this subject in this blog.
In preparation for this meeting, I asked the 20 sets of questions shown below, and obtained early answers to most of them before the issue was tabled for more work and future consideration.
Answers given to these are summarized following each question.
Answers to the rest await their being asked again.
Stay tuned to see what decisions this -or a future- Council will make on this important issue
---------------------
Questions & Answers
---------------------
Q1. The Sewer system dynamics make a good illustration of what is meant by 'level of service', and can also be applied to transportation.
By identifying pinch points and suggesting parallel piping, larger piping, holding tanks and combined flow mitigation,
these have direct counterparts to handling traffic.
A1. Agreed regarding traffic. That's why we have Deemer, Cordata and Eliza parallel to the Guide.
---------------------
Q2. In the various scenarios, I don't see the idea of relocating the big interceptor that crosses Whatcom Creek.
Was this idea considered?
What is the estimated cost?
Is this the time to consider such an idea?
A2. We don't have the Whatcom Creek pipe in because relocating it doesn't help the sewer system.
We can do it by adding a pump station on one side of the creek.
It is millions and purely optional.
We can do it anytime someone provides the money.
---------------------
Q3. Regarding the proposed C Street Remote Storage facility, would this be located near or on waterfront property?
Is this included in waterfront redevelopment planning?
Will this idea serve to excite the neighborhood?
A3. C Street would be a large vault built under the renovated C Street at the waterfront.
Maybe 50 feet wide, 500 feet long and 20 feet deep.
We would essentially drive on the roof.
---------------------
Q4. Sewer service is a valuable commodity!
Do we need to reserve our existing capacity preferentially for in-City use?
How does this impact annexations and/or service to Water District?
A4. Quick feedback while working on the bigger answers: the sewer interlocal from 1974 does not expire after 20 years.
It says that the term is for a period of AT LEAST 20 years.
That means that it goes forever unless we mutually agree to a new agreement. I have contacted LWWSD to start the process.
A4. The Comp Plan planning section reviews the entire service area and takes into account the population projects and update TAZ data to determine adequate sanitary sewer capacity. The intent of the plan is to have a living document that can be updated as necessary. There is ‘no reserve’ but rather built in capacity for the densities that have been approved for current in-fill strategies. Example: if a future Council decided on limiting service to an area but wanted to expand density in another, the plan could be amended to achieve this goal or the capacity is already built-in to the system. How does this impact annexations and/or service to Water District? Generally, most annexations are in areas within the City’s UGA and those areas have been included in the planning/capacity analysis for this particular comprehensive plan. Unless during the annexation process zoning changes were being recommended to increase densities that may have not been originally planned for, there is again, built in capacity for those annexations. The City only serves one Water District with sanitary sewer service, LWWSD and the flows from that District are included in this plan based on 1) contract amount and the draft LWWSD comp plan.
---------------------
Q5. Do we charge SDCs for the Water District? Can we? If not, can we raise sewer rates sufficiently to cover this subsidy?
What does 'average GPM' flow rate translate to in terms of peak flow?
If we increase SDC for city dwellers, doesn't that mean the Water District gets an increase?
Where do we stand in renegotiating the Interlocal with the Water District?
It was signed in 1974 and was to be in effect for 20 years. That ended in 1994!
I know rate increases will be 50% higher in proportion to the City, but is this enough?
A5. Yes, [we do charge SDCs for the Water District] however, the only District receiving sewer service is LWWSD and they have a contract that allows for a specific amount of sewage flow, therefore, we would not be able to charge an SDC for each one of their internal customers that are connecting to their system. We could, if a new district required service charge the provider for the new main connection and service to the City’s system, i.e. Ferndale or Lummi, etc…
Q5. Can we? If not, can we raise sewer rates sufficiently to cover this subsidy?
A5. The SDC are a ‘buy-in+growth’ concept that the Council approved during the 2004 ‘cost-of-service’ model rate study. If a District where to ask for a new connection, the SDC would apply. The SDC is based on ‘meter size equivalent’ so generally there is really no ‘subsidy’ here.
Q5. What does 'average GPM' flow rate translate to in terms of peak flow?
A5. Depending on the context, but ‘average GPM’ is the expected flow in the system or from a customer on average over a specific time period. The industry usually uses ‘average annual GPM’ or ‘average annual daily flow.’ ‘Peak flow’ is the highest expected flow rate during a specific period of time; it can be in a daily format or an annual flow rate depending on whether one is discussing water or wastewater. In wastewater, we generally use daily peak flows as our way to gauge sizing of components and facilities.
Q5. If we increase SDC for city dwellers, doesn't that mean the Water District gets an increase?
A5. SDC are only paid at the time of permit, we would not be issuing any new permits to a water district unless they were to ask for a new connection. So, raising SDC for all new customers, inside and outside of the City only affects those services that are directly connected to the City’s sanitary sewer service.
Q5. Where do we stand in renegotiating the Interlocal with the Water District?
A5. The City is currently reviewing the Interlocal Agreement and is in the process of trying to reopen the process for negotiating. Internal meetings are on-going to outline strategies and objectives. The sewer interlocal from 1974 does not expire after 20 years. It says that the term is for a period of AT LEAST 20 years. That means that it goes forever unless we mutually agree to a new agreement.
Q5. It was signed in 1974 and was to be in effect for 20 years. That ended in 1994!
I know rate increases will be 50% higher in proportion to the City, but is this enough?
Q5. The Cost-of-Service model includes an analysis that accounts for the revenue generated by the 1974 agreement and subsequent payment options on new facilities, i.e. Oak St Lift Station Upgrade in 2005.
---------------------
Q6. Section 3 assumes the County will OK the City's request for additional UGA land supply.
Since this is in question, how will less land supply impact the analysis of future needs?
A6. The analysis is conservative in nature and as a living document with an active hydraulic model it is intended to be updated and used on a continual basis; the plan can be modified as planning scenarios change and growth is either slowing or increasing. We will update and reevaluate the CIP on a regular basis to ensure that our targets are being met.
---------------------
Q7. Are there further plans for separating sanitary and storm water, aside from reducing existing I & I?
A7. In 1978-1982, the City undertook a huge storm/sewer separation project that basically removed all known storm water from the sanitary system with some exceptions and no removal of roof drains from property owners. We are constantly evaluating the sanitary system through portable and permanent flow meters to determine unknown sources of storm water into the system. There are several large storm pipes that are in need of separation but unfortunately, no storm systems exists in the drainage area nor are those pipes easily constructed at this time due to existing structures and topography. These are in the downtown area, along the waterfront and it is expected that as the waterfront develops, these will be separated into new storm systems.
---------------------
Q8. Since Yew Street has not been up-zoned, why is the extension to Samish Way at Lake Padden needed?
A8. There are existing homes that are in need of sanitary sewer that would remove septic systems from the Lake Padden drainage area.
---------------------
Q9. There are expensive plans in Chapter 7 for sewer line extensions west of the airport and east of I-5.
Are these considered likely annexations?
If not, why plan for them?
A9. Annexations and their likelihood were derived from the Planning Dept and it’s direction from Council. It is not fully known on annexation timeliness nor likelihood. However, these areas are within the City’s planning area for wastewater service and thus need to be considered in the calculations at this time.
---------------------
Q10. What are our plans for providing sewers to currently un-sewered areas in the City, like the South Neighborhood?
Is significant growth likely for this area? Enough to justify costs?
A10. The City approached this neighborhood in the mid-90’s as a potential candidate for a Utility LID (Local Improvement District) but after analysis the cost did not justify the improvements. Depending on neighborhood sentiment and growth, it may be advantageous to review this again.
---------------------
Q11. The suggestions for eliminating bottlenecks, increasing efficiency, changing treatment technology and expanding unit processes and unit operations at Post Point seem well-conceived and phased.
What is the practical limit on this site?
I note a hydraulic capacity expansion to 82 mgd is suggested.
Is that the maximum likely?
What are plans once Post Point's ultimate capacity is reached?
A11. The site expansion would be limited for any continued expansion to the west and south by the new recommended improvements being built in 2009-2012. The City’s purchase of the McKenzie Ave property allows for some additional growth beyond the current proposal most likely into 2030. After that, if no additional property is obtained to the north (Port of Bellingham land) then possible upgrades to existing process with newer technologies that do not require larger footprints may be an option.
Q11. note a hydraulic capacity expansion to 82 mgd is suggested. Is that the maximum likely?
A11. The City has experienced flows at the WWTP around 72MGD instantaneous, so the 82 MGD and the higher 107MGD are good planning numbers that are consistent with growth projections and the planning storm of 2004.
Q11. What are plans once Post Point's ultimate capacity is reached?
A11. Hydraulically, additional collection system storage or high rate treatment facilities may be necessary within the collection system at key conveyance points to meet futre needs, similar to what is being recommended for the collection system in 2012.
---------------------
Q12. What about nutrient removal? Is this for Nitrogen? Will it work on Phosphorus?
Where is DOE coming from on this?
When does our existing NPDES permit expire?
A12. Based on discussions with DOE, nutrient limits (ammonia, N, and/or P) are not likely to be imposed during the planning period. Furthermore, the current recommended expansion is not designed to provide nutrient removal per se (although bio-P is provided via the anaerobic selector). The planned expansion can be modified if needed at some future date, to accommodate nutrient removal. The City received its new NPDES permit on November 02, 2007, it is good for 5 years from that date.
---------------------
Q13. Recommended conveyance systems improvements fall largely at the edges of City limits, some in UGAs.
If the City must finance these prior to annexation, isn't that an undue burden on existing taxpayers?
Will Latecomers fees recover all these costs?
A13. If any utility improvements are installed by ratepayer funds, the City will assess property owners a future latecomer fee to access the system. Another possible way to achieve improvements prior to annexation or during would be to form a Utility LID. Costs that are associated with capacity are rolled into the SDCs and new developer pays the buy-in + growth, thus paying back the cost that the City incurred to make the necessary capacity available to the new customer.
---------------------
Q14. Chapter '11' for Capital Improvements Plan is scary!
But, seriously, the Basis for Estimated Cost on page 11-5 is interesting.
Can or should this methodology be applied to other capital projects?
Like a Library?
A14. Yes, many other organizations, especially the Federal Government use ‘Cost Basis of Estimate’ or BOE. The Cost Basis of Estimate provides a record of the procedures, ground rules and assumptions, data, environment, and events that underlie a cost estimate’s development or update. Good documentation supports the cost estimate’s credibility, aids in the analysis of changes in program cost, enables reviewers to effectively assess the cost estimate, and contributes to the population of data bases for estimating the cost of future programs.
---------------------
Q15. Thank goodness this isn't Chapter 11!
Good job of presenting the results of many complex activities and projects.
The point needs to be made clearly these total $110 million in present day costs.
The $191 million takes into account escalation over time and on time.
Regardless, it is good news that only 30% of the total amount must be raised from bonds, grants and other sources other than rates & SDCs.
Having to raise $33 million present day or $60 million escalated will be far more acceptable for Council to approve.
A15. No comments received.
---------------------
Q16. The rate increases of 7% for 2008 and 7.68% for 2009 are OK with me because they do seem necessary because they address a known deficiency earlier rather than later.
But, some others may feel differently and an alternate phasing might be advisable to have in your back pocket.
A16. Phasing options will be available for discussion.
---------------------
Q17. The SDC increases are quite substantial and will probably be fought by the BIA and others.
So, timing is important! Maybe early December after elections?
You might also consider a phasing plan for SDCs, although its probably better to just get beaten up once instead of multiple times.
But, a $4201 increase over the existing $3436 SDC is a big jump! 122%
A17. This will be something that we will want to discuss at the November 19th Council session on water/sewer rates.
A phasing plan is always an option and if Council like to explore the possibility of phasing the SDC, we will have several courses of action to choose from.
---------------------
Q18. The comparison to other cities on page 12-15 is useful.
But only Kirkland is shown as having a higher SDC AFTER we increase ours.
That may be a negative.
A18. No comments received.
---------------------
Q19. Appendix D - Water District Agreement needs revisiting!
I know we can't rescind it, but we can change it!
Changes in circumstances is really all we have to claim.
Since 1974 we have finally discovered Lake Whatcom is our reservoir and taken significant action to protect it.
Those actions cost dearly and all parties need to share more equitably!
Sudden Valley should not be considered a low cost community.
Other developments around the Lake are certainly not low cost either!
This sewer agreement is leverage the City ought to be using better.
A19. No comments received.
---------------------
Q20. It would be nice to get the changes is SDCs and rates into the 2008 budget, whether before we approve on Nov 26 or early next year.
But, if Water rates and Stormwater rates are to be increased as well, you need to think about what's most important and start with that.
It will be very nice to get these big utility funds updated to last several years into the future, regardless of administration.
Including phased increases is a very smart way to do that, for multiple reasons.
A20. No comments received.
---------------------
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS: Can They Work?
-----------------------------------
The simple answer to the question posed above is 'you bet they can!'
But, like almost everything else, TDRs are not automatic; they must actually be set up to work, then this tool must be used.
The Whatcom County PDR/TDR program was established about 10 years ago, but has languished for a number of reasons.
[PDR stands for 'Purchase of Development Rights', and is used primarily to preserve farmland and other resource lands]
So far, Whatcom County hasn't used PDRs much because of lack of funding, but mostly a lack of political will and commitment.
And, the same can be said for the City of Bellingham, although it has acquired about 700 TDRs from it's Lake Whatcom Watershed Acquisition & Preservation Program.
But, it is good to see the TDRs actually being discussed again, because if a potentially good land use tool isn't on people's minds, it is very unlikely to be used to any good effect.
Now, with some recent annexations approved in 4 northern neighborhoods, the City of Bellingham may be able to establish and promote more so-called 'receiving areas', the lack of which has severely hampered the TDR program.
We'll have to see about that.
It is also a good sign that the Old Town redevelopment will require some TDRs from Lake Whatcom, and that the City has agreed to accept 'fees-in-lieu-of' payments in place of the somewhat awkward TDR transfer process.
Almost anything that can be done to jump-start an effective TDR program is probably worth the effort, particularly in establishing a future tool that can be readily used.
Rarely, do incentives alone achieve their goals; there must be some requirements, too.
The two must work together.
-----------------------------
Earlier this year, the City commissioned a report to update the TDR status. The PC approved its Findings and Recommendations in April of this year.
A few excerpts illustrate the meat of this report:
• To date, the Lake Whatcom Watershed Property Acquisition Program has expended about $18 million to purchase about 1450 acres and about 700 associated TDRs.
• About 229 of these TDRs have been purchased and 31 of them actually transferred to 'receiving areas', located outside the watershed. Average cost per TDR is about $30,000. This translates to a 10:1 transfer ratio, if the sales price of TDR used in a receiving area is $3,000.
To make any TDR program work, 6 things are required:
1. Availability of suitable 'receiving areas'
2. Cooperation between Sending and Receiving jurisdictions
3. A balanced marketplace for TDRs
4. Attractive financial incentives
5. A TDR 'bank' and facilitating mechanisms
6. Community support
Some of these are substantially missing, which accounts for the very modest performance compared to what is possible.
Of more importance, are the 7 Conclusions & Recommendations of the report:
1. The City must set minimum density requirements, as a condition of annexation.
2. Alternately, the base density could be lowered, but this is not considered a good idea at this time, because development is already occurring at lesser density than desirable for an urban area.
3. Demand for TDRs will likely increase in the future, but we need to get ready now.
4. TDR use may be encouraged by making them available on an exception basis.
5. City could expand the Lake Whatcom Acquisition Program
6. We need actual experience to make TDRs a usable future tool. Consider a demonstration project.
7. The City may need to offer public amenities to encourage using TDRs, equal to or greater than their value.
-----------------------------
Anyone remember the sessions with Rick Pruetz, the TDR expert? I do.
Most of what is now being discussed, was made available by Mr Pruetz in one of the 3 publications listed below, whether it was actually used or not. I know a copy of 'Saved by Development' is available in the City Council library, because I put it there.
Saved by development
preserving environmental areas, farmland and historic landmarks with transfer of development rights
by Rick Pruetz
Published in 1997, Arje Press (Burbank, Calif)
Beyond takings and givings
saving natural areas, farmland, and historic landmarks with transfer of development rights and density transfer charges
by Rick Pruetz
Published in 2003, Arje Press (Marina Del Rey, Calif)
Putting transfer of development rights to work in California
by Rick Pruetz
Published in 1993, Solano Press Books (Point Arena, Calif)
===========================================
Here's an excerpt from a MEETING SUMMARY on the County website:
Agriculture Advisory Committee Meeting Held 12-07-05
Agriculture Service Center
6975 Hannegan Rd
Troy Holbrook from the Whatcom County Planning and Development Services presented a power point presentation to the committee regarding the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Troy provided the committee with a handout pertaining to the power point presentation.
Troy stated that the current TDR program was targeted at the Lake Whatcom Watershed in hopes of protecting Bellingham’s source of drinking water and surrounding critical areas. The Lake Whatcom Watershed is a current “sending” area in the county.
Troy stated that a second “sending” area has recently been established in the Birch Bay area.
The “receiving” areas are the Bellingham UGA and a small section of Birch Bay. Troy
stated that the City of Bellingham does not participate in the program.
The program is currently voluntary and as of December 7, 2005 330 TDRs have been certified in the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Fifty-two of the 330 TDRs have been transferred into the Bellingham UGA.
Troy stated that the current price for a TDR is $2,000-$6,000. Transfer of Development Right certificates are issued at the time of purchase. The certificates can be sold or transferred. Certificates are permanently placed on the respective property titles.
Chuck stated the need to create a market for TDRs in the county to boost competition. Troy recommended that the committee support the TDR program to the County Council. In turn, Chuck recommended that the committee draft a document supporting the TDR program and the possibility of a TDR sending area in agriculture areas of the county.
Troy also provided a brief presentation on the PDR program in Whatcom County. A PDR Summary Table, Target Areas Map and Recommendations by the PDR committee were made available by Jessica to the committee for review.
The simple answer to the question posed above is 'you bet they can!'
But, like almost everything else, TDRs are not automatic; they must actually be set up to work, then this tool must be used.
The Whatcom County PDR/TDR program was established about 10 years ago, but has languished for a number of reasons.
[PDR stands for 'Purchase of Development Rights', and is used primarily to preserve farmland and other resource lands]
So far, Whatcom County hasn't used PDRs much because of lack of funding, but mostly a lack of political will and commitment.
And, the same can be said for the City of Bellingham, although it has acquired about 700 TDRs from it's Lake Whatcom Watershed Acquisition & Preservation Program.
But, it is good to see the TDRs actually being discussed again, because if a potentially good land use tool isn't on people's minds, it is very unlikely to be used to any good effect.
Now, with some recent annexations approved in 4 northern neighborhoods, the City of Bellingham may be able to establish and promote more so-called 'receiving areas', the lack of which has severely hampered the TDR program.
We'll have to see about that.
It is also a good sign that the Old Town redevelopment will require some TDRs from Lake Whatcom, and that the City has agreed to accept 'fees-in-lieu-of' payments in place of the somewhat awkward TDR transfer process.
Almost anything that can be done to jump-start an effective TDR program is probably worth the effort, particularly in establishing a future tool that can be readily used.
Rarely, do incentives alone achieve their goals; there must be some requirements, too.
The two must work together.
-----------------------------
Earlier this year, the City commissioned a report to update the TDR status. The PC approved its Findings and Recommendations in April of this year.
A few excerpts illustrate the meat of this report:
• To date, the Lake Whatcom Watershed Property Acquisition Program has expended about $18 million to purchase about 1450 acres and about 700 associated TDRs.
• About 229 of these TDRs have been purchased and 31 of them actually transferred to 'receiving areas', located outside the watershed. Average cost per TDR is about $30,000. This translates to a 10:1 transfer ratio, if the sales price of TDR used in a receiving area is $3,000.
To make any TDR program work, 6 things are required:
1. Availability of suitable 'receiving areas'
2. Cooperation between Sending and Receiving jurisdictions
3. A balanced marketplace for TDRs
4. Attractive financial incentives
5. A TDR 'bank' and facilitating mechanisms
6. Community support
Some of these are substantially missing, which accounts for the very modest performance compared to what is possible.
Of more importance, are the 7 Conclusions & Recommendations of the report:
1. The City must set minimum density requirements, as a condition of annexation.
2. Alternately, the base density could be lowered, but this is not considered a good idea at this time, because development is already occurring at lesser density than desirable for an urban area.
3. Demand for TDRs will likely increase in the future, but we need to get ready now.
4. TDR use may be encouraged by making them available on an exception basis.
5. City could expand the Lake Whatcom Acquisition Program
6. We need actual experience to make TDRs a usable future tool. Consider a demonstration project.
7. The City may need to offer public amenities to encourage using TDRs, equal to or greater than their value.
-----------------------------
Anyone remember the sessions with Rick Pruetz, the TDR expert? I do.
Most of what is now being discussed, was made available by Mr Pruetz in one of the 3 publications listed below, whether it was actually used or not. I know a copy of 'Saved by Development' is available in the City Council library, because I put it there.
Saved by development
preserving environmental areas, farmland and historic landmarks with transfer of development rights
by Rick Pruetz
Published in 1997, Arje Press (Burbank, Calif)
Beyond takings and givings
saving natural areas, farmland, and historic landmarks with transfer of development rights and density transfer charges
by Rick Pruetz
Published in 2003, Arje Press (Marina Del Rey, Calif)
Putting transfer of development rights to work in California
by Rick Pruetz
Published in 1993, Solano Press Books (Point Arena, Calif)
===========================================
Here's an excerpt from a MEETING SUMMARY on the County website:
Agriculture Advisory Committee Meeting Held 12-07-05
Agriculture Service Center
6975 Hannegan Rd
Troy Holbrook from the Whatcom County Planning and Development Services presented a power point presentation to the committee regarding the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Troy provided the committee with a handout pertaining to the power point presentation.
Troy stated that the current TDR program was targeted at the Lake Whatcom Watershed in hopes of protecting Bellingham’s source of drinking water and surrounding critical areas. The Lake Whatcom Watershed is a current “sending” area in the county.
Troy stated that a second “sending” area has recently been established in the Birch Bay area.
The “receiving” areas are the Bellingham UGA and a small section of Birch Bay. Troy
stated that the City of Bellingham does not participate in the program.
The program is currently voluntary and as of December 7, 2005 330 TDRs have been certified in the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Fifty-two of the 330 TDRs have been transferred into the Bellingham UGA.
Troy stated that the current price for a TDR is $2,000-$6,000. Transfer of Development Right certificates are issued at the time of purchase. The certificates can be sold or transferred. Certificates are permanently placed on the respective property titles.
Chuck stated the need to create a market for TDRs in the county to boost competition. Troy recommended that the committee support the TDR program to the County Council. In turn, Chuck recommended that the committee draft a document supporting the TDR program and the possibility of a TDR sending area in agriculture areas of the county.
Troy also provided a brief presentation on the PDR program in Whatcom County. A PDR Summary Table, Target Areas Map and Recommendations by the PDR committee were made available by Jessica to the committee for review.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Local Labor Boss Issues 11th Hour 'Warning'
----------------------
Yesterday's Herald carried an opinion piece by David Warren designed to not-so-subtlely dissuade our Mayor and City Council from seriously reconsidering the City's ill-advised 'Big-Box' ban.
You can read this article right here.
Of course, today - the 'ides of June' - is the day that public discussions will be held to reconsider the so-called 'big-box ban, along with other measures to help the City bring its General Fund budget back into a better semblance of balanced.
So, it's understandable that folks who are afraid their ox will be gored, show up to beg, cajole or intimidate our elected officials to do their bidding.
That's OK, and part of the process, as long as our electeds are careful to observe the fractured latin of 'petticoati tyrannus non bossanova', which roughly translates into 'don't let petty tyrants boss you around'
In his piece, Mr Warren:
• disagrees with the Herald editorial board that the 'big-box' was really targeting Wal-Mart [it was]
• tries on a 'green suit' in an effort to court sustainability fans [not his color]
• rails against any corporation who dares to get too big, resist unionization, go bankrupt, pay less than family wages & benefits, lays off workers, or leaves an 'empty' building behind [welcome to America]
• claims -unconvincingly- he is not an 'anti' Mayor Pike [huh?]
• applauds the City for searching for 'creative ways' to solve the current severe revenue shortfall, without offering any plan himself for reducing expenditures [kinda hard, isn't it?]
• avoids mentioning entirely the furlough plan now being considered by Whatcom County [inconvenient & unpleasant]
Can you see a pattern here?
-------------------------------
As the chief architect of the hasty and unwise so-called 'big-box ban', Mr Warren's response is predictable.
Perhaps, he has another remedy in mind for the city's major revenue shortfall, which is partly due to loss of sales taxes from big box stores, including Wal-Mart, itself the largest single sales tax source?
As president of the Northwest Washington Central Labor Council, Warren wields inordinate power, not only over the 85% of City employees who are members of nine different unions, but over elected officials dependent upon the support of organized labor.
Is he sending a 'message', designed to influence officials and candidates during the upcoming elections?
After all, union bosses are sometimes noted for their strong-arm tactics, as I personally experienced after my opposition to both the so-called 'living wage' ordinance, the 2004 budget shenanigans and the big-box ban.
Those tactics didn't work very well on me, but they did on 4 or 5 Council members, and the mayor at the time.
And, you know 4 of those Council members are still around.
[drumroll, please]
rat-a-tat: Louise Bjornson
rat-a-tat-tat: Gene Knutson
rat-a-tat-tat-tat: Barbara Ryan
rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat: Terry Bornemann
Of course, that's not to say other Council members, Mayors, mayor-wannabe's, or candidates couldn't be similarly 'persuaded' by Mr Warren to do his bidding, either
Hey, no one blames Mr Warren for doing what he is paid to do, but he is not an official who is elected by the public, or necessarily represents them as a first priority.
Maybe Warren does have a plan to reduce the substantial union contract wages & benefits that have been negotiated over time?
Something like that would certainly help the budget situation more than any other responsible act the City could take.
That's because the great majority of the General Fund is comprised of mainly employee wages & benefits.
Much as we might like to shift those monies around, there are laws and mandatory government accounting practices that prevent us from doing so.
Sometimes, it is possible to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. But Peter needs to be paid back. And, what about Mary?
I cannot imagine anyone doubting that the City's employees are its main asset!
That is why a voluntary wage & benefit reduction plan would respond best to the short-term problem, as well as long-term sustainability.
But, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
More likely, Mr Warren and his ilk will push to have any budget cutting happen 'somewhere else', even though there is 'no where else' that can be legitimately cut - to the extent needed.
And, I seriously doubt the City has ANY plans to sell real estate to big box stores.
That is simply ludicrous and designed to appeal to emotion, not facts.
Besides, most available property is not owned by the City, but by private interests.
The fact is, the big-boxes are already here, and have been here for some years.
Plus, I have heard NOTHING about totally rescinding big-box regulations, and Mr Warren should know that, if he doesn't already.
One other point, this article purports to be about so-called 'big-boxes, but that doesn't wash.
It IS about Wal-Mart, pure & simple, as it has been from the start.
Expanding Wal-Mart to 'big-boxes' was necessary for the legal cover needed to 'legitimize' the unwise measure initially approved by the City Council.
Citizens may wish to understand that our local 'big-boxes' also include Target, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Fred Meyer and others, of course excluding the now defunct Circuit City and any others that may not yet survive these tough economic times.
But, methinks Mr Warren would really rather not open this discussion more widely, preferring instead to stonewall wage & benefit gains already achieved.
And, don't forget those 'big-box' bragging rights, either!
Hey, did you know Bellingham was the first city in Washington to adopt an anti-Wal-Mart -er, 'Big-Box' - ordinance?
One last question; If Warren feels so good about Costco, why include them in the 'Big-Box' ban?
Is it Catch-22 time?
This is the time of year when the heat starts getting turned up on the local government griddle!
Good luck, Council.
-------------------------------
Yesterday's Herald carried an opinion piece by David Warren designed to not-so-subtlely dissuade our Mayor and City Council from seriously reconsidering the City's ill-advised 'Big-Box' ban.
You can read this article right here.
Of course, today - the 'ides of June' - is the day that public discussions will be held to reconsider the so-called 'big-box ban, along with other measures to help the City bring its General Fund budget back into a better semblance of balanced.
So, it's understandable that folks who are afraid their ox will be gored, show up to beg, cajole or intimidate our elected officials to do their bidding.
That's OK, and part of the process, as long as our electeds are careful to observe the fractured latin of 'petticoati tyrannus non bossanova', which roughly translates into 'don't let petty tyrants boss you around'
In his piece, Mr Warren:
• disagrees with the Herald editorial board that the 'big-box' was really targeting Wal-Mart [it was]
• tries on a 'green suit' in an effort to court sustainability fans [not his color]
• rails against any corporation who dares to get too big, resist unionization, go bankrupt, pay less than family wages & benefits, lays off workers, or leaves an 'empty' building behind [welcome to America]
• claims -unconvincingly- he is not an 'anti' Mayor Pike [huh?]
• applauds the City for searching for 'creative ways' to solve the current severe revenue shortfall, without offering any plan himself for reducing expenditures [kinda hard, isn't it?]
• avoids mentioning entirely the furlough plan now being considered by Whatcom County [inconvenient & unpleasant]
Can you see a pattern here?
-------------------------------
As the chief architect of the hasty and unwise so-called 'big-box ban', Mr Warren's response is predictable.
Perhaps, he has another remedy in mind for the city's major revenue shortfall, which is partly due to loss of sales taxes from big box stores, including Wal-Mart, itself the largest single sales tax source?
As president of the Northwest Washington Central Labor Council, Warren wields inordinate power, not only over the 85% of City employees who are members of nine different unions, but over elected officials dependent upon the support of organized labor.
Is he sending a 'message', designed to influence officials and candidates during the upcoming elections?
After all, union bosses are sometimes noted for their strong-arm tactics, as I personally experienced after my opposition to both the so-called 'living wage' ordinance, the 2004 budget shenanigans and the big-box ban.
Those tactics didn't work very well on me, but they did on 4 or 5 Council members, and the mayor at the time.
And, you know 4 of those Council members are still around.
[drumroll, please]
rat-a-tat: Louise Bjornson
rat-a-tat-tat: Gene Knutson
rat-a-tat-tat-tat: Barbara Ryan
rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat: Terry Bornemann
Of course, that's not to say other Council members, Mayors, mayor-wannabe's, or candidates couldn't be similarly 'persuaded' by Mr Warren to do his bidding, either
Hey, no one blames Mr Warren for doing what he is paid to do, but he is not an official who is elected by the public, or necessarily represents them as a first priority.
Maybe Warren does have a plan to reduce the substantial union contract wages & benefits that have been negotiated over time?
Something like that would certainly help the budget situation more than any other responsible act the City could take.
That's because the great majority of the General Fund is comprised of mainly employee wages & benefits.
Much as we might like to shift those monies around, there are laws and mandatory government accounting practices that prevent us from doing so.
Sometimes, it is possible to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. But Peter needs to be paid back. And, what about Mary?
I cannot imagine anyone doubting that the City's employees are its main asset!
That is why a voluntary wage & benefit reduction plan would respond best to the short-term problem, as well as long-term sustainability.
But, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
More likely, Mr Warren and his ilk will push to have any budget cutting happen 'somewhere else', even though there is 'no where else' that can be legitimately cut - to the extent needed.
And, I seriously doubt the City has ANY plans to sell real estate to big box stores.
That is simply ludicrous and designed to appeal to emotion, not facts.
Besides, most available property is not owned by the City, but by private interests.
The fact is, the big-boxes are already here, and have been here for some years.
Plus, I have heard NOTHING about totally rescinding big-box regulations, and Mr Warren should know that, if he doesn't already.
One other point, this article purports to be about so-called 'big-boxes, but that doesn't wash.
It IS about Wal-Mart, pure & simple, as it has been from the start.
Expanding Wal-Mart to 'big-boxes' was necessary for the legal cover needed to 'legitimize' the unwise measure initially approved by the City Council.
Citizens may wish to understand that our local 'big-boxes' also include Target, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Fred Meyer and others, of course excluding the now defunct Circuit City and any others that may not yet survive these tough economic times.
But, methinks Mr Warren would really rather not open this discussion more widely, preferring instead to stonewall wage & benefit gains already achieved.
And, don't forget those 'big-box' bragging rights, either!
Hey, did you know Bellingham was the first city in Washington to adopt an anti-Wal-Mart -er, 'Big-Box' - ordinance?
One last question; If Warren feels so good about Costco, why include them in the 'Big-Box' ban?
Is it Catch-22 time?
This is the time of year when the heat starts getting turned up on the local government griddle!
Good luck, Council.
-------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
